joc's blog http://www.correntewire.com/blog/707/atom/feed 2008-03-24T00:17:22-04:00 What's the matter with Josh Marshall? http://www.correntewire.com/whats_the_matter_with_josh_marshall 2008-05-01T12:55:22-04:00 2008-05-01T13:15:00-04:00 joc In the ongoing saga of WKJM, today’s edition tries to answer the question, why did Hillary win Ohio and does it have anything to do with why she’ll win Indiana and Kentucky? Not one to bury the lede, let me say that WKJM’s answer is that there are a whole bunch of racists in those states.

]]> In the ongoing saga of WKJM, today’s edition tries to answer the question, why did Hillary win Ohio and does it have anything to do with why she’ll win Indiana and Kentucky? Not one to bury the lede, let me say that WKJM’s answer is that there are a whole bunch of racists in those states.

We know that it’s race, because WKJM gives us a quote from a racist, talking to George Packer. That is tied to Republican Rep. Geoff Davis’ statement a couple of weeks ago (in which he called Obama “that boy”). And these are then tied to the latest polling numbers in Kentucky. Hillary is beating Obama by and almost 2 to 1 margin in the state, and she runs almost even with McCain, while Obama trails him badly. That this is due to race is in WKJM’s word “inescapable.” WKJM then does a triple-back-flip with a full twist on the dismount when he points out that, “you only need to look at a map to see that Kentucky makes up the southern border of Ohio and Indiana.” So, when you see Hillary wins Indiana next week and Kentucky later this month, keep in the back of your mind, that Hillary’s winning because of the “racialized voting.”

Let’s look at just how inescapable WKJM’s logic is, shall we? The facts, Hillary outpolls Obama by 36 points in the latest SUSA poll. She loses to McCain by 2, while he loses to McCain by 34 points. Another fact, while one cannot easily find pre-voting polling for the Democratic nomination in Nebraska, Obama beat Hillary by 36 points at the caucuses. He loses to McCain by 3, while she loses to McCain by 27 points. Stand back as I now apply the WKJM logic of inescapbability: Nebraska voters are racist against white people! Also, you only need to look at a map to see that Nebraska makes up the northeastern border of Colorado, and the western borders of Iowa and Missouri. I’m just saying.

While concerning, but not as dire, Alaska is also exhibiting traits of anti-white racism. Obama loses to McCain by 5, Hillary loses by 25, and he won the caucuses by 50 points (can you get more bigoted than that?). The good news is that Alaska only borders Canada, and no other states will be tainted by their discriminatory ways.

]]> Breaking News: Clinton To Pull Name off North Carolina Primary Ballot! http://www.correntewire.com/breaking_news_clinton_to_pull_name_off_north_carolina_primary_ballot 2008-04-25T12:46:01-04:00 2008-04-25T14:17:42-04:00 joc In what is being heralded as one of the most momentous and politically astute moves of this extended primary campaign, Hillary Clinton’s Communication Director, Howard Wolfson, has signaled that the Clinton Campaign will be withdrawing from the North Carolina contest and focusing all of their efforts on the other May 6th primary in the state of Indiana.

]]> In what is being heralded as one of the most momentous and politically astute moves of this extended primary campaign, Hillary Clinton’s Communication Director, Howard Wolfson, has signaled that the Clinton Campaign will be withdrawing from the North Carolina contest and focusing all of their efforts on the other May 6th primary in the state of Indiana.

When first told, political reporters balked at the idea that Clinton would give up a portion of the 115 pledged delegates for the party convention that were allocated to the voters in the Tar Heel State. However, it was noted that if there is only one candidate on the ballot, in this case Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois, it would not be considered a ’real election.’ This means those delegates to the Democratic Convention in Denver would not be accepted as legitimate, since they were not won in a properly contested election. One solution, previously offered by the Obama camp, is to split the delegates evenly between Clinton and Obama. This proposal, however, was met with resistance by the Obama camp. David Axelrod, the Obama campaign senior strategist, pointed out that Clinton was voluntarily pulling her name off the North Carolina ballot and should therefore suffer the consequences of her own actions.

The uncontested primary in North Carolina might also help the Clinton Campaign in its attempt to win the overall popular vote of the nomination process. Political observers have noted that another aspect of the illegitimacy of a one-candidate contest is that the North Carolina votes would not be counted in the popular vote totals. Charlie Cook, of the Cook Political Report, was very impressed with Clinton’s decision, “It’s a bold move by Hilary. She is killing three birds with one stone. She achieves parity with Obama in the North Carolina delegates, she doesn’t lose ground in the overall popular vote, and allows herself the luxury of spending more time on a contested election in Indiana.”

The Obama campaign tried to dismiss the idea that the North Carolina vote is now a meaningless “beauty contest” saying it was further proof that Hillary would “do anything to win.” However, a high-level source working for Obama admitted they were exploring the possibility of pulling Obama’s name off the primary ballots in the remaining states and declaring victory.

]]> Josh's Latest Absurdity http://www.correntewire.com/joshs_latest_absurdity 2008-03-24T13:10:08-04:00 2008-03-24T13:10:08-04:00 joc In a post entitled “Reductio Ad Absurdum” Josh shows us once again that he is quite adept at ignoring the obvious when it suits his needs. He rails against Clinton supporters who point out different scenarios that make Clinton look better than Obama when it comes to the getting the Democratic nomination. Josh is upset because “[t]here’s a set of rules everyone agreed on,” and no one should talk about anything outside of those rules. Such discussions are “just silly.”

Josh brings up this as an example:

]]> In a post entitled “Reductio Ad Absurdum” Josh shows us once again that he is quite adept at ignoring the obvious when it suits his needs. He rails against Clinton supporters who point out different scenarios that make Clinton look better than Obama when it comes to the getting the Democratic nomination. Josh is upset because “[t]here’s a set of rules everyone agreed on,” and no one should talk about anything outside of those rules. Such discussions are “just silly.”

Josh brings up this as an example:

I imagine playing poker around a table with friends. Player A has a Straight Flush; Player B has four of a kind. Then B says well, sure, if you’re counting straights, but if we were adding up the numbers rather than going by straights winning, I’d have won.

Yes, if that were what was going on it would be silly. But it isn’t. When Evan Bayh is written up in the NYT for saying superdelegates should consider the Electoral College voting when making their decision, Josh calls it a gambit and equates it with ruling out caucuses. Josh then claims disingenuously that this is “just a back door way of getting rid of proportional allocation of delegates.” That is a crock. It’s about the superdelegates taking what’s best for the Democratic Party in the general election into consideration when deciding who to cast their vote for, and Josh know that. One wonders why he feels the need to pretend otherwise?

What Josh is doing there is kind of like the poker game he describes, only the guy with four of a kind says, before everyone lays their cards down, that four of a kind beats a straight flush. If the guy with the straight flush folds, four of a kind wins even though it could have lost according to the rules. The Clinton Campaign is calling that bluff, and demanding that Obama (and his supporters) follow the rules as they are, which includes letting the superdelegates decide what they think is best for the party. Josh is certainly free to keep trying to bully the superdelegates into voting in lock-step the pledged delegates (but it is kind of funny that he never seems to ask superdelegates like Kennedy or Kerry to follow the will of the voters in their state).

I know that Josh isn’t a fan of following this part of the rules, because it puts his candidate in jeopardy of losing, but as he says, there’s a set of rules everyone agreed on.

]]> A look at the Electoral College Maps for Clinton and Obama http://www.correntewire.com/a_look_at_the_electoral_college_maps_for_clinton_and_obama 2008-03-23T13:38:39-04:00 2008-03-24T00:17:22-04:00 joc Now that the brouhaha over the words of Reverend Wright has been completely done away with by Barack Obama’s speech, his supporters are once again clamoring for Hillary Clinton to get out of the race. We are told the only way she can win is if she manages to have a ‘coup by superdelegates.’ Those of you who are fans of the rules will note that such a coup is wholly permissible (as long as there is no associated violence).

There are many on the blogs who deem it unseemly that the will of the people would be ignored by these superdelegates (unless, say, that superdelegate was a governor from a southwestern state whose voters didn’t vote for the bloggers’ candidate of choice ). The question is what will they be looking at when making their decisions about what is best for the Democratic Party. Undoubtedly, the superdelegates will take the will of the people into account, but that is not all. Here I will focus on something else they will consider - who has the best chance of beating McCain in the Electoral College at the end of the year.

To do this I first look at the current state of polling in head to head match-ups between McCain and the two Democrats. The following two maps are drawn based on the current match-ups. These were created using 270toWin.com’s interactive map feature. The polling data used in this analysis were also found at 270toWin.com. A complete listing of this polling data is given in a table at the end of this post. The states are colored in only if the polls show a difference between the two (Clinton vs. McCain or Obama vs. McCain) of five percentage points or greater. It is certainly possible that changes of more than 5 percentage points could occur before November, but that is what I chose to use as a point for comparison.

Clinton vs. McCain

Obama vs. McCain

As can be seen, more states have aligned themselves with a candidate in the Clinton vs. McCain contest than for Obama vs. McCain. Clinton holds a >5% lead over McCain in 16 states (and the District of Columbia) which are worth a total of 215 electoral votes, while McCain leads (>5%) Clinton in 24 states worth 212 electoral votes. This leaves 10 states and 111 electoral votes ‘up for grabs.’ For Obama the lead (>5%) is in 15 states (plus DC), worth 180 electoral votes, with McCain leading (>5%) in 21 states worth 189 electoral votes. Thus they have 14 states and 169 electoral votes ‘in-play.’

]]> Now that the brouhaha over the words of Reverend Wright has been completely done away with by Barack Obama’s speech, his supporters are once again clamoring for Hillary Clinton to get out of the race. We are told the only way she can win is if she manages to have a ‘coup by superdelegates.’ Those of you who are fans of the rules will note that such a coup is wholly permissible (as long as there is no associated violence).

There are many on the blogs who deem it unseemly that the will of the people would be ignored by these superdelegates (unless, say, that superdelegate was a governor from a southwestern state whose voters didn’t vote for the bloggers’ candidate of choice ). The question is what will they be looking at when making their decisions about what is best for the Democratic Party. Undoubtedly, the superdelegates will take the will of the people into account, but that is not all. Here I will focus on something else they will consider - who has the best chance of beating McCain in the Electoral College at the end of the year.

To do this I first look at the current state of polling in head to head match-ups between McCain and the two Democrats. The following two maps are drawn based on the current match-ups. These were created using 270toWin.com’s interactive map feature. The polling data used in this analysis were also found at 270toWin.com. A complete listing of this polling data is given in a table at the end of this post. The states are colored in only if the polls show a difference between the two (Clinton vs. McCain or Obama vs. McCain) of five percentage points or greater. It is certainly possible that changes of more than 5 percentage points could occur before November, but that is what I chose to use as a point for comparison.

Clinton vs. McCain

Obama vs. McCain

As can be seen, more states have aligned themselves with a candidate in the Clinton vs. McCain contest than for Obama vs. McCain. Clinton holds a >5% lead over McCain in 16 states (and the District of Columbia) which are worth a total of 215 electoral votes, while McCain leads (>5%) Clinton in 24 states worth 212 electoral votes. This leaves 10 states and 111 electoral votes ‘up for grabs.’ For Obama the lead (>5%) is in 15 states (plus DC), worth 180 electoral votes, with McCain leading (>5%) in 21 states worth 189 electoral votes. Thus they have 14 states and 169 electoral votes ‘in-play.’

For both candidates MN, WI, MI, and PA are in-play, and it’s been 20 years since any of them voted Republican (in MN’s case it’s been 36 years). If these states are won by the Democratic Presidential candidate (assuming the other >5% states are also won), Clinton will have already topped 270 electoral votes. Obama’s total would be 238. Assuming he wins MA and NJ (not big assumptions in my opinion), he’s still only at 265 electoral votes. He has to win at least one more state from the following list: FL, ND, NE, SC, NC, VA, and CO. The last time NC and SC went for a Democrat in the general was in 1976, for Carter (that includes 2004, when SC-born/NC-elected Senator John Edwards was on the ticket). Neither ND nor NE have voted for a Democrat since before Nixon (i.e. we might have a chance there if McCain can be turned into another electoral Goldwater). Given the debacle over the Florida primary, I expect his best chances are in VA and CO (also, if FL even looks close in the month before the Republican convention, I fully expect McCain to choose Gov. Crist as his running mate). Virginia also hasn’t gone for a Democratic candidate since before Nixon (I know, I know, it’s trending blue, but can you say it’s going to get there now?). Colorado has only once voted for a Democratic candidate since the 60s, and that was Bill Clinton in 1992 (in ‘96 it thought Bob Dole was the better choice!). I know that Obama supporters say that he is opening up the electoral map. Well, he has to! Otherwise it’s will be very hard for him to win.

If the same game is played starting with a 10% spread (instead of 5% as above), Clinton wins 8 states (and DC) to McCain’s 16, giving Clinton 150 electoral votes to McCain’s 106. Obama wins 9 states (and DC) while McCain again has 16. Obama’s electoral vote total is 116, McCain’s is 118. Again, Clinton enters the playing field with an advantage over McCain, Obama enters in deficit.

I would also like to bring out some details about the bigger states. A lot of bloggers have knocked the Clinton Campaign’s emphasis on the big states (10 or more electoral votes), but when you look at the numbers, one can see a marked benefit compared to Obama in the match-ups.

Big states where both Clinton and Obama lead McCain

(values shown are the polling separations from McCain):

StateClintonObama
California (55)1814
New York (31)138
Illinois (21)1129
Washington (11)59
Maryland (10)913
Wisconsin (10)14

Big states where only Clinton leads McCain:

StateClintonObama
Ohio (20)6-7
New Jersey (15)11-2
Massachusetts (12)130
Minnesota (10)3-1

Big state where only Obama leads McCain:

StateClintonObama
Virginia (13)01

Big states where McCain leads both Clinton and Obama:

StateClintonObama
Texas (34)-6-8
Florida (27)-7-4
Pennsylvania (21)-2-1
Michigan (17)-3-3
Georgia (15)-21-13
North Carolina (15)-8-2
Indiana (11)-10-9
Missouri (11)-2-14

You may note that Tennessee does not appear in the preceding tables, that is because in the Tennessee polls Clinton and McCain are tied (while McCain is leading Obama by 16).

Clearly, the Clinton strategy is paying dividends in Ohio, New Jersey, and Massachusetts (worth a combined 47 electoral votes), where in each case Clinton is polling 13 percentage points higher than Obama against McCain.

Furthermore, the Obama Campaign and some bloggers have made a lot of hay out of the number of states they have had primary/caucus victories in. How has that worked out, in terms of the electoral vote? Well, in the Democratic primaries and caucuses so far, Obama won 26 states (and DC). He leads McCain in 12 of those 26 states (and DC) for a total of 99 electoral votes. While Clinton won 16 states, she leads McCain in 8 of them, for a total of 148 electoral votes. Again, Clinton’s strategy appears to be better preparation for the general election. What happens if we don’t look at just a straight-up lead? What if we look at how many states they are either ahead or within 5% (striking distance) of McCain? Then Obama adds another three states (SC, NE, and MN), worth 23 electoral votes to the previous totals, and Clinton adds MI (17 electoral votes).

Of the 26 states that Obama won in the primaries/caucuses, he trails McCain by more than 10 percentage points in 10 of those states. Of the 16 states that Clinton won in the primaries/caucuses, she trails McCain by more than 10 percentage points in only 1 of them (Arizona).

The general election campaign will be full of twists and turns, with many changes in the polling over the next seven and a half months (e.g. I fully expect the head-to-head polling vs McCain in Pennsylvania to change in both of the Democrats’ favor over the next month as the campaigns compete in the April 22nd primary). At this moment, however, it looks like Hillary Clinton’s strategy in the nominating process has positioned her to have a easier road victory in November than did Barack Obama’s. The question is whether being better positioned in the general will help her to win the nomination by helping her convince the superdelegates she is the best Democratic candidate.

Data used for maps and tables.
StatePoll DateElec CollObamaMcCainDifferenceClintonMcCainDifference
Alabama3/20/0893562-273856-18
Alaska3/6/0834348-53456-22
Arizona3/6/08103951-123954-15
Arkansas3/6/0863353-20514011
California3/20/0855544014563818
Colorado3/17/089464603852-14
Connecticut3/11/08750381247443
Delaware3/6/0835041946415
Florida3/12/08274347-44047-7
Georgia3/6/08154154-133556-21
Hawaii3/6/08461313043394
Idaho3/6/0842763-363952-13
Illinois3/6/0821603129483711
Indiana2/5/08114251-94050-10
Iowa3/20/087504464448-4
Kansas3/20/0863951-123655-19
Kentucky3/19/0882864-364353-10
Louisiana3/6/0893954-154151-10
Maine3/6/08453391448426
Maryland3/6/081053401349409
Massachusetts3/20/081247470554213
Michigan3/17/08174144-34346-3
Minnesota3/20/08104647-149463
Mississippi3/6/0864154-134251-9
Missouri3/19/08113953-144648-2
Montana3/6/0833947-83353-20
Nebraska3/6/0854245-33057-27
Nevada2/12/0855038124049-9
New Hampshire3/17/0844346-34147-6
New Jersey2/27/08154345-2503911
New Mexico3/20/0855145651456
New York3/20/083152448544113
North Carolina3/6/08154547-24149-8
North Dakota3/6/083464243554-19
Ohio3/19/08204350-750446
Oklahoma3/6/0873457-234250-8
Oregon3/20/0875041950446
Pennsylvania3/10/08214344-14446-2
Rhode Island2/10/084423012433211
South Carolina3/6/0884548-34248-6
South Dakota3/4/0833850-123848-10
Tennessee3/6/08113854-1646460
Texas2/25/08344149-84349-6
Utah3/6/0853950-112765-38
Vermont3/6/083632934493910
Virginia3/20/08134847147470
Washington3/20/08115142950455
West Virginia3/6/0853554-1947425
Wisconsin3/20/08104844446451
Wyoming3/6/0833553-182861-33

Data Sorted by Polling Differential

StateECObMcDiffStateECClMcDiff
ID42763-36UT52765-38
KY82864-36WY32861-33
AL93562-27NE53057-27
OK73457-23AKa33456-22
AR63353-20GA153556-21
WV53554-19MT33353-20
WY33553-18KS63655-19
TN113854-16ND33554-19
LA93954-15AL93856-18
MO113953-14AZ103954-15
GA154154-13CO93852-14
MS64154-13ID43952-13
AZ103951-12IN114050-10
KS63951-12KY84353-10
SD33850-12LA94151-10
UT53950-11SD33848-10
IN114251-9MS64251-9
MT33947-8NV54049-9
TX344149-8NC154149-8
OH204350-7OK74250-8
AKa34348-5FL274047-7
FL274347-4NH44147-6
MI174144-3SC84248-6
NE54245-3TX344349-6
NH44346-3IA74448-4
SC84548-3MI174346-3
NJ154345-2MO114648-2
NC154547-2PA214446-2
MN104647-1TN1146460
PA214344-1VA1347470
CO946460WI1046451
MA1247470CT747443
VA1348471MN1049463
ND346424HI443394
WI1048444DE346415
IA750446WA1150455
NM551456WV547425
NY3152448ME448426
DE350419NM551456
OR750419OH2050446
WA1151429OR750446
CT7503812MD1049409
NV5503812VT3493910
RI4423012AR6514011
MD10534013IL21483711
CA55544014NJ15503911
ME4533914RI4433211
IL21603129MA12554213
HI4613130NY31544113
VT3632934CA55563818

]]>