Insomnia Again
Jun. 4th, 2007 03:27 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
dexfarkinSo I used it to catch up on the latest Democratic primary debate going on in New Hampshire. Politics ahoy!
A couple of brief notes before I get into it. The presidental nomination process in the United States is one of the most brutal in the world. Both of the large parties are relatively structured the same, and many of them have identical names on the donor cards. There's an old saying that the President isn't a person, but the representative of thousands of specific interests and groups by the time they reach the office. It's cynical, but to a large extent, it's also true. The primary process isn't as much about chosing a leader, but about test driving policy and support to see who's going to line up behind who. One of the more interesting elements of the internet grassroots movement is that it's hammering away at the 'machine' elements of the primaries, even going as far in one case of ousting a sitting Senator from his party affliation as a reaction to his political stances. Still, the change isn't all the way there, and the fix is still largely in.
Not surprisingly, the strong performances came from the first tier. Edwards, Obama, and Clinton did well, for the most part, and avoiding any serious stumbles. Richardson flushed himself back to the third tier fairly solidly, and more than anything, this race has tightened down to three candidates even as early as now.
Both Obama and Edwards were strong, but both got caught back on their heels as different points. Obama especially is showing more and more cracks along this process, which leads me to believe my initial assessment is right about him. He lacks the true campaign experience, or strong campaign management, to seriously engage in the long term grind of a Presidential campaign. Politics is a bloodsport, and Obama through a combination of luck, intelligence and raw charisma has avoided the worst of it his entire career. But in this environment, you have to adapt and his golden aura is fraying badly. There were elements during the debate that his missed chances to really emphasis his key points, and he allowed others to frame his own responses, which is a big mistake in this kind of debate. Unless Obama takes either Iowa or New Hampshire, or a lightning quick win in the states immediately after, I think he'll be a non-factor by the third week of voting.
Edwards showed his achillies during the debate, and got away with it unbloodied for the most part. However, like Obama, he really didn't get a chance to nail his key point, although his constant reposition to health care was canny. Edwards biggest problem is that his key elements of electability for the Democratic party are now ten years past. The Western states bluing means that the Holy Grail of the progressive, populist Southern Democrat candidate isn't as significant. As well, it's very obvious that he's been out of power for a while now, and while his message is very strong and visceral, there's a tangiable idealism to it that oddly enough works against him. He comes over as dedicate and sincere, and unfortunately for him, a touch naive. Still, far and away, the most likely true challenger for the nomination.
However, the night was Hillary Clinton's. Not because she won, although she gave a strong performance, took some of her more glaring issues on the nose with poised, articulate answers, and was actually the most naturally charming of the candidates, but because she didn't lose. She came across as deeply knowledgable on the international stage, very sharply underlying Edwards and Obama's weaknesses there, but did well to connect with her announcement. People reacted extremely well to her responses, and the moments in which she interjected humour drew far more reaction than the others. Hillary's single biggest hurdle is the idea of her inability to connect to her detractors in order to be elected. Tonight, more than anything specific that she said, she showed a much stronger natural instinct to work her audience and came across as pragmatic, intelligent, thoughtful and human; Presidential is usually what they use for that.
Updated predictions: Edwards needs momentum. To crack Hillary's machine, he needs early states with strong percentages. He needs to climb on to the idea of the inevitable candidate quickly, as Kerry did by the third week. He's got the potential to do it, but I honestly feel it's an outside shot. If he picks up IA and NH, I'd give him even odds, better if he can fold in either Richardson or Obama. Lose either of them, and it will take a major stumble.
Obama is the longest shot. He's a charismatic superstar, but he lacks the campaign structure and the personal experience. I see him brokering a deal less than a month in, and having the potential to play Kingmaker. If he finishes a strong second or third in several states, and rolls in with Clinton, Edwards is done in six weeks tops. If he rolls into Edwards, Clinton will have to be letter perfect and seize momentum to break that kind of alliance.
Clinton is still the presumptive candidate. Despite what everyone says about electability and personal negatives, Clinton has two major advantages; campaign experience and organization. She'll continue to rake in the cash, and unlike the other candidates, has the ability to walk in states she's behind in and concentrate on later ones. She's also the one that I can't see getting the late scandal. There's nothing left to dig up on this woman, and you can't discount that. There's also the major advantage of having the Big Dog working the states. After seven years of Bush and his approval rating slightly below that of genital warts and licking rotting eggplant, Bill Clinton showing up, being referred to as 'Mr President' and pointing his charm on display is a major advantage that none of the other candidates have.
On a random note, am I the only one that just plan feels sorry for Dodds up there?
I'd say something about the GOP debates, but really, there's nothing to tell. Seriously, the primaries alone are an image problem for them. Let's find to oldest, whitest men possible, and let them fight it out for the nomination. The GOP race is fascinating on the ground level, but at the debates, it's like a cure for insomnia.
Hey, there's a thought. Quick, McCain, argue with Thompson about some....zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.
A couple of brief notes before I get into it. The presidental nomination process in the United States is one of the most brutal in the world. Both of the large parties are relatively structured the same, and many of them have identical names on the donor cards. There's an old saying that the President isn't a person, but the representative of thousands of specific interests and groups by the time they reach the office. It's cynical, but to a large extent, it's also true. The primary process isn't as much about chosing a leader, but about test driving policy and support to see who's going to line up behind who. One of the more interesting elements of the internet grassroots movement is that it's hammering away at the 'machine' elements of the primaries, even going as far in one case of ousting a sitting Senator from his party affliation as a reaction to his political stances. Still, the change isn't all the way there, and the fix is still largely in.
Not surprisingly, the strong performances came from the first tier. Edwards, Obama, and Clinton did well, for the most part, and avoiding any serious stumbles. Richardson flushed himself back to the third tier fairly solidly, and more than anything, this race has tightened down to three candidates even as early as now.
Both Obama and Edwards were strong, but both got caught back on their heels as different points. Obama especially is showing more and more cracks along this process, which leads me to believe my initial assessment is right about him. He lacks the true campaign experience, or strong campaign management, to seriously engage in the long term grind of a Presidential campaign. Politics is a bloodsport, and Obama through a combination of luck, intelligence and raw charisma has avoided the worst of it his entire career. But in this environment, you have to adapt and his golden aura is fraying badly. There were elements during the debate that his missed chances to really emphasis his key points, and he allowed others to frame his own responses, which is a big mistake in this kind of debate. Unless Obama takes either Iowa or New Hampshire, or a lightning quick win in the states immediately after, I think he'll be a non-factor by the third week of voting.
Edwards showed his achillies during the debate, and got away with it unbloodied for the most part. However, like Obama, he really didn't get a chance to nail his key point, although his constant reposition to health care was canny. Edwards biggest problem is that his key elements of electability for the Democratic party are now ten years past. The Western states bluing means that the Holy Grail of the progressive, populist Southern Democrat candidate isn't as significant. As well, it's very obvious that he's been out of power for a while now, and while his message is very strong and visceral, there's a tangiable idealism to it that oddly enough works against him. He comes over as dedicate and sincere, and unfortunately for him, a touch naive. Still, far and away, the most likely true challenger for the nomination.
However, the night was Hillary Clinton's. Not because she won, although she gave a strong performance, took some of her more glaring issues on the nose with poised, articulate answers, and was actually the most naturally charming of the candidates, but because she didn't lose. She came across as deeply knowledgable on the international stage, very sharply underlying Edwards and Obama's weaknesses there, but did well to connect with her announcement. People reacted extremely well to her responses, and the moments in which she interjected humour drew far more reaction than the others. Hillary's single biggest hurdle is the idea of her inability to connect to her detractors in order to be elected. Tonight, more than anything specific that she said, she showed a much stronger natural instinct to work her audience and came across as pragmatic, intelligent, thoughtful and human; Presidential is usually what they use for that.
Updated predictions: Edwards needs momentum. To crack Hillary's machine, he needs early states with strong percentages. He needs to climb on to the idea of the inevitable candidate quickly, as Kerry did by the third week. He's got the potential to do it, but I honestly feel it's an outside shot. If he picks up IA and NH, I'd give him even odds, better if he can fold in either Richardson or Obama. Lose either of them, and it will take a major stumble.
Obama is the longest shot. He's a charismatic superstar, but he lacks the campaign structure and the personal experience. I see him brokering a deal less than a month in, and having the potential to play Kingmaker. If he finishes a strong second or third in several states, and rolls in with Clinton, Edwards is done in six weeks tops. If he rolls into Edwards, Clinton will have to be letter perfect and seize momentum to break that kind of alliance.
Clinton is still the presumptive candidate. Despite what everyone says about electability and personal negatives, Clinton has two major advantages; campaign experience and organization. She'll continue to rake in the cash, and unlike the other candidates, has the ability to walk in states she's behind in and concentrate on later ones. She's also the one that I can't see getting the late scandal. There's nothing left to dig up on this woman, and you can't discount that. There's also the major advantage of having the Big Dog working the states. After seven years of Bush and his approval rating slightly below that of genital warts and licking rotting eggplant, Bill Clinton showing up, being referred to as 'Mr President' and pointing his charm on display is a major advantage that none of the other candidates have.
On a random note, am I the only one that just plan feels sorry for Dodds up there?
I'd say something about the GOP debates, but really, there's nothing to tell. Seriously, the primaries alone are an image problem for them. Let's find to oldest, whitest men possible, and let them fight it out for the nomination. The GOP race is fascinating on the ground level, but at the debates, it's like a cure for insomnia.
Hey, there's a thought. Quick, McCain, argue with Thompson about some....zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2007-06-04 11:17 am (UTC)I agree though, he's a much more credible threat to Clinton (note the cooptation of his rhetoric on class war by her and some of his stuff on health by Obama, recently).
But he really needs to tighten up and get a hold of his campaign. They've been making a lot of unforced errors lately, the kind of small sticky stuff that has the tendency to go under candidate's radar but can get an image-shaping momentum of its own.
And he has to win in Iowa and do so big. Considering that he's practically been living there for the last two years, the pressure for him to do not just well but outstanding there is enormous.
He, more than anyone, has been hurt by the reshuffling of the states' primaries, which, imo, are a gigantic step toward making NH and IA deservedly irrelevant.
Obama is just not ready for prime time.
Clinton's biggest problem - besides her hard negatives (which are substantial and are a substantial problem) - are not -her- scandals, but something coming out about Bill again.
I sincerely doubt he's remained chaste since he left DC. No way to predict how that will play, of course but combined with her unfavourable it's more likely to hurt her than get her 'wronged wife' sympathy.
As for the debates, I'll handicap myself - I have only been able to catch snippets/vid-clips and such, on youtube and MSNBC site. Still, the Republican debates held much more of my inerest - there just seemed more substance there.
On the other hand their debates are overshadowed by the white elephant in the room. Until Thompson makes it official it's kind of a silly to have these debates. His entry will immediately reshuffle the deck, probably knocking McCain out of the Big Three.
In the end I think Thompson and Guiliani will fight it out, but that's a very tentative prediction. Romney's gotten a lot of momentum out of his quick reaction to the immigration bill.
On the bright side of the debates there's the Ron Paul Experience.
(Come! Come and feast your eyes of the Republican Kucinich!)
Gore has a bit of the same effect on the Dems, but much less. He's almost certainly not going to run, but his very presence is making the field tilt to the left.
no subject
Date: 2007-06-04 04:03 pm (UTC)See, I disagree. I'm having trouble seeing much other than fairly marginal surface seperations right now. It's like they're shadow boxing and all using the same talking points in different ways. Maybe it's a visceral reaction to what I see as the weakest offering of GOP candidates in since Dole.
I think Romney's going to pick up an all but announced VP running mate fast. He's got a stronger sense of the political ju-jitsu of this kind of campaigning than the others, and I can see him pulling a Kerry by emerging strong as a consenus candidate.
I think Thompson is intriguing with his Reagan-esque elements, but again, I trust campaigners in the primary process ahead of all others. That's why I'm not as quick to count McCain out. I think he's lost his window, but he's got a lot of experience in the primary system, and will be right there when Rudy stumbles.
no subject
Date: 2007-06-04 06:36 pm (UTC)The season of hard campaigning where the platforms and issues are stringly articulated and real differences between candidates emerge have only just began. On both sides.
Look at the Democratic discussions. The differences are largely cosmetic there as well, to the tune of why won't Clinton tear out her hair, pur ash over her head and moan mea culpas over her Iraq vote.
Republicans are largely in the same position but their timetable on this has been pushed by the immigration bill. That's largely responsible for Romney breaking the 10% ceiling. He has consistently been stuck in the third place, until McCain came out with Ted Kennedy and announced the immigration reform with a beaming smile. I think he's done. The GOP base has made it clear that they are willing to swallow a pro-choice, pro-gay candidate if he;s string on security. They see immigration as part of the security issue bundle and won;t forgive this. And they never trusted him after McCain-Feingold.
There's been an interesting poll recently that showed the radical disconnect between GOP and Dem bases. Not on how they view issues, but rather on what issues they consider serious.
That's what I meant by substance - Democrats have largely returned to the pre-9/11 platform of health care and education. Republicans are concentrating on security and social issues.
I see education as an invitation to demagoguery, much like gun rights. And I don't care about social issues. Health care is important but for it to get top billing in post-9/11 world os insane in my opinion.
Both parties give much attention to Iraq and economy as well. Not to rehash old argument but I find the GOP stand to be much more realistic on the former.
As for latter...
I have been singularly unimpressed by the backsliding on the economic rhetoric by the democrats. Edwards doesn't count here - he's staked out his ground as a faux-populist and he will feed the red meat till the bitter end. But I had hoped Hillary had grown out of her semi-socialist phase. She has been very smart about this and now suddenly she lets off stuff like "We'll take money from you for the common good." I mean, c'mon...
And Dodd stood up yesterday for capping oil prices? He isn't credible, but nobody of the frontrunners stood up and pointed out the idiocy of proposing price controls either.
Anti-free trade rhetoric is rampant.
Overall the Dems have tilted significantly to the left since Bill Clinton.
2
Date: 2007-06-04 06:37 pm (UTC)I would bet heavily on her to get the nom.
I am much more skeptical on her ability to win general election, however. 45% would be my current assessment. She can do it but it would depend on 2 things in my opinion: 1- her running a very controlled campaign making no silly mistakes. This is the easier part. She's been preparing for this for years. 2 - Republican coalition imploding. Tancredo running as an independent and Bloomberg pulling a Perot, while significant number of libertarians and others stay home. This outcome is currently 50/50. But this is a process she can't control, it's the product largely of internal mechanics of the GOP. If they hold together - she's done. If they don't, we just might see a complete blow out, an utter rout of the republicans, the revenge for Dukakis and McGovern.
This, imo, is still an unlikely outcome, but very possible.
Re: 2
Date: 2007-06-04 07:22 pm (UTC)Again, I disagree, although you are right that factors outside of her control have massive effects on the campaign. Any third party is going to come out of the GOP flank to the most part. Bloomberg would actually hurt Hillary by drawing votes out of traditionally soft moderates in New England and the West, as much as it pulls the libertarians off. However, I think the liberatarian wing of the GOP is largely written off at this point in any case. It's got a big government, big interference party that it's suppose to sit under the tent with?
Guiliani is the most dangerous for the Democrats, because unlike McCann who is visibly damaged goods, Guilliani is the only other real national presence. But Rudy on the election machine? I think his polling and support is laughably soft, and I don't think he'll get the nomination not because Republicans won't vote for pro-choice, pro-gay, but because his numbers are largely illusionary. I'd be surprised if he gets out of first six states anywhere even in the realm of his current numbers.
While I think an implosion is possible, I don't see it as the only way Clinton wins. The trend lines strongly favour the Democrats in the West, and a great deal of her strong opposition is concentrated in areas she can't win in any case. One of my points about the debate was that she's coming across much stronger in connecting to her crowds and maintaining her poise. Which means that 'negative' number is going to be soft too. I think if someone like Romney gets the nod, Clinton gets the election no matter how tight the GOP holds together.
no subject
Date: 2007-06-04 07:11 pm (UTC)The main difference is that you actually have to vote for one of these guys, and I'm just interested in the dog fight. And lets face it, the GOP kennel is pretty quiet right now. If only Tancredo would punch McCain in the face or something.
Health care is important but for it to get top billing in post-9/11 world os insane in my opinion.
I still think you're wrong on this issue. Health care is a pocketbook issue the likes of which used to be the tax cut bread and butter platform of the GOP. It's not just the size of the issue itself, 44 million uninsured, 133 million underinsured, but also the runaway pricing of the insurance companies and big pharmas. You pay three times as much to get less coverage in hospitals with lower investment. I think it's a nice hammer you can lay down that everyone can relate to. I think health care has the potential to be a top tier issue that will play well across the board. All the influence and the timing is there for it, like it wasn't before.
As for the security issue, the biggest issue the GOP faces is the record of the GOP. Poor or non-implemented recommendations for national security while money is diverted to Iraq. Consistant failures in properly equipping troops or supported permentantly disabled veterans. Scandals with contracting, medical support, misused intelligence... security killed the GOP in the 2006 cycle, and there's no sign of a miraculous reversal in 2008 either.
As for the left-right tilt, I think since Bill, the spectrum's been consistantly shifted right. I don't think the push to the left is as much as sudden liberal mania as a balancing out from a drift in the opposite direct. Look at 1950-1960, where you had an almost reversal of position. The framework is always in motion.
no subject
Date: 2007-06-04 03:05 pm (UTC)Biden and Gravel were entertaining. I'd love to see the two of them in a death match. Biden really reminded me of a less intelligent Howard Dean. Oh, Howard. How I miss thee.
I watched the debate last night because I am still on the fence about who I may vote for. I agree that Hillary stole the show. And I think she'd be a great president. I just don't know if she's electable. And the Dems have had trouble lately finding the right formula. They need a candidate that people can vote FOR, not vote for because they're better than the other guy. So should the best candidate get the nom or the most electable?
As a North Carolinian by birth and a southern democrat by breeding (Jimmy Carter was on the wall next to Jesus at my grandmother's house), I have to say I am disappointed in Edwards. Perpetually. And I worked on his campaign for Senate back in 98. He used to be a real person. He probably still is in private. But I agree with Doqz... he's become the Smiler. And it's very, very scary.
And the point of all this is that I'm still on the fence, but am very, very impressed with Hillary.
As far as the GOP goes... the south has become their block. But I don't think they'll vote for Guilliani. He's too moderate. If Edwards was running against Guilliani, we could see a spackling of blue amid the red down below the Mason-Dixon. Despite Guilliani's status as the hero of 9-11, I don't think a lot of southerners will vote for a New York City man.
no subject
Date: 2007-06-04 04:40 pm (UTC)One of my biggest complaints about the Democratic party is the focus on 'electability' by a party that doesn't have the slightest clue what that term actually means. Let us compare, say, Harold Ford to Jim Webb. Both faced off against strong incumbants that made mistakes during the general. However, Ford's careful, by the book, centrist positioning got his clock cleaned, where as Webb's formula, which was unapologetically straightforward carried him in a state he had no business finishing withen five points of, much less winning (and torpedoing the presidential asperiations of the man most likely to have walked off with the GOP nomination).
As I keep saying over and over, a big part of the presidential election is an endurance race. It's who can work the machine and the schedule to win. Kerry got ground down in it, while Bush, for all his faults, is one of the few natural politicians. The Smiler refs make me laugh, because in my mind, Bush is the Beast; a natural political animal who understands what winning requires and relishing in it. I don't think Bush is that interested in governing. It's the rush of the campaign that animates him.
Bill Clinton was another natural. Bill used to walk into rooms full of GOP and walk out with a dozen new friends. The amount of legislation he was able to get through a GOP congress while under impeachment talk is staggering considering the circumstances. Reagan, Nixon, Kennedy... all that kind of seemingly effortless ability to connect. And that's what I'm starting to see out of Hillary. The thing I took away from the debate most was how the audience reacted. More than anyone else, it took its cues from her. If she can continue to do that, than even with Guiliani in the matchup, she's going to win. She's got the intelligence, the mental toughness and the retorical skills. If she can continue to build that empathy, I think she'll go all the way. If not, the negatives will swamp her quickly.
To beat an analogy into the ground...
Date: 2007-06-04 05:22 pm (UTC)Rove has his hand so far up Bush's ass he can flap GW's lips by wiggling his fingers.
Sort of like the scene in Johnny Mnemonic.
But anyway. Just thought I'd chime in with one more amusing factoid - Patrick Stewart wants to play Spider Jerusalem BAD. To the point where he has, in front of Ellis, jumped up on a table and did one of Spider's rants from memory.
no subject
Date: 2007-06-04 06:42 pm (UTC)Now what the hell was up with that question about "How might you use Bill Clinton?" But I guess the Republicans were also asked that question, weren't they?