Question: If Obama decides to in fact go with public financing for the general election to allay criticism (www.nytimes.com/.../20obama.html), can he distribute the money he's raised/raises to Democratic congressional candidates?  If so that seems significant in terms of his coat tail effect on the election in November.

Via thepage, her punch line tomorrow is "one of us has faced serious Republican opposition in the past. "  Is she serious?  John Spencer?  Rick Lazio? It's one thing to be part of an administration, it's another to be the candidate.  

Books will be written on how horrifically Hillary's campaign has been run....no extensive ground game beyond the big states whatsoever....Mark Penn..Solis...will never run another campaign in their lives.

Not to put too fine a point on this 9 race streak (soon to be 10) but it is worth pointing out that  his margin in Wisconsin - currently 17% with only 3% outstanding - is his SMALLEST margin of victory in all of these.

Moreover, the only places where Hillary has topped that 17% margin have been Arkansas and Oklahoma (and she matched the 17 points in New York (it is worth noting that two of those three are her "home" states.)

All this is to say that for all the talk about the streak, we may have actually been understating its magnitude. certainly, a lot of that is understandable as it has always been dangerous to count out the comeback kids.

But at this point, it is hard to envision HIllary putting together a string of wins, let alone racking up the kind of vote margins she would need to get back in the pledged delegate hunt, Which is ultimately what scares me. It is hard for me to envision a scenario where the Clinton's graciously bow out. I fear they are more likely to try every dirty, sleazy underhanded trick imaginable to steal a nomination they believe to be rightly theirs.  And I fear they'd do this even at the risk of tearing the party apart. It's gonna get ugly folks.

clingenf01, I think the serious Republican opposition Mrs. Clinton is referring to is Republican House of Representatives that impeached her husband.

Which because Hillary was the secret Doppelgänger president we didn't know we had, means they were impeaching her, too.  And she beat 'em.  That is, the Republican Senate rescued them.

But, don't worry, there's always 2016.

Jack,

"no extensive ground game beyond the big states whatsoever" ???

Try "NO GAMEPLAN AT ALL beyond the Feb 5 states whatsoever. " The arrogance of this crowd. They were so confident that they'd run the table and force everyone else offstage in the first month, they never even considered an alternate scenario.  Hubris to the Nth degree - and they've paid for it.

"(OK, a moment’s pause for demographics: 55 percent of last night’s electorate had less than a college degree, while 40 percent earn less than $50,000.) "

You do realize that 11% of the voters were college students (18-24), with same-day registration? That would make them "some college" and earning less than $50K. Anything over 10% is pretty big for the 18-24 year old group.

And 35% of the voters were independents or Republicans. In an overwhelmingly white electorate, Hillary won white Democrats 52-47.

I'm not saying this to convince people of anything. I'm seriously asking why these numbers aren't considered relevant to Obama's taking the nomination. and what it means about his wins, his support, and his chances of wining in the general.

TNR and other media outlets have all reported faithfully that John McCain's wins were based on independents,and trumpeted when he finally got a majority of Republicans. But the same thing is happening with Obama.

Does TNR (or heck, even just Michael Crowley) genuinely believe that Obama will win the white vote,when Dems in general have lost it conclusively for such a long time? Does it make sense to give the nomination to a candidate who can't even win the white Democrat vote and quite often loses the overall white vote, with the margin depending on the percentage of independents and Republicans participating? Does it make sense for the Democrat leadership to give the nomination to a candidate who can't win a primary unless the electorate has over 30% liberals (caucuses),blacks, or independent/Republicans?

Again, Hillary won white Democrats. Wisconsin is 80% white. If Obama won by such a big margin, who is handing him that win? It sure isn't the Democrats.

Perhaps the Clintons thought their politicking (and by politicking, i mean straight up fraud) with the board of elections in the Northeast would have settled the matter a while ago.

www.ny1.com/.../index.jsp

Hillary's new theme song should be Madonna's "Open Your Heart." I mean, if she's having another theme song contest.

jmkerr:  Hillary "won" White democrats 51-48%.  In statistical parlance, that's what we call well within the margin or error, and so essentially a tie.  Obama beat Hillary 62-35% in White Independents, and 72-28% among all Republicans.  There's who voted for him.  If you consolidate the White Vote, he won 54-45% (which he would have to, as he won a 90% white state by 17 points.  Further, if you split the racial vote by gender (as you refuse to do, because it conceals the inherent bias of a racial breakdown for Hillary: her advantage in white female voters), the result is staggering.  Obama won White men 63-34%, and again only "lost" white women by 52-47% (again, close enough to be a tie).  Further, it's not a question of winning the White vote in a general election, but keeping it close enough that the Democrat's overwhelming advantages with minorities (who, much as your demographic analysis seems to forget, are also important people who can vote) turns their coalition into an overall majority.  Finally, if Obama seems to lose the White Democrat vote, but win the White vote overall, (especially when more Republicans and Independents participate) does it not seem to make sense that as a nominee he would do relatively well when far more Independents and Republicans are voting (and Democrats unite behind their nominee?)  Where exactly does your demographic logic make any sense whatsoever?

It's good (for Obama supporters) that Hillary is forced to play up expectations for March 4th The way things are going, she will get trumped in Vermont and Rhode Island, narrowly lose Texas, and only win Ohio without a landslide. There will be no recovery for her campaign. It will be over.

That being said, a lot can happen in the next two weeks to change the trajectory, but that's the way things stand right now.

Maybe I'm coming to conclusions too soon, but I want to say: "Hillary Clinton is a great senator and a great American. She has broken through barriers and made accomplishments that were once thought impossible. She has served a critical role in moving America forward. She would have made a wonderful president."

jmkerr, if the college kids go out to vote for Obama in such numbers in the primary, what makes you think they won't do the same in the general?  

Now, if you want to criticize a particular poll because it seems to have given too much weight to young respondents given their notoriously shoddy turnout on election day, fair enough.  But you cannot level the same criticism on the results of an actual election, for the simple fact that in that case, the young voters actually have TURNED OUT.  

You and all the other Clintonistas are like reverse alchemists, trying to transmute gold into lead.  'Obama attracts the YOUNG--so unreliable.  He attracts INDEPENDENTS--they're not real Democrats.'  Please help me understand how it is a bad thing for a candidate to persuade those who don't usually vote Democratic or, in the case of the young, who don't usually vote at all, to go to the polls and pull a lever for him.

Kids have never voted at levels beyond the 25% range.Every four years we hear about our side's secret Youth trump card, and every four years it fails to materialize in any meaningful way. For the life of me I don't understand why our side pins so much hope on a low-participation demographic whose share of the overall vote is SHRINKING-- s.t. like 1/2 the share that it had in 1968.

Mind-boggling. Is this just a matter of older campaign workers and journalists hoping to score with comely coeds?

Anyway, if you want to focus on the demographic that will make or break us in this election, that would be hispanic voters in the southwest, perhaps also in Florida.Still waiting for TNR to do analysis of Obama's problems with these crucial swing voters who, if McCain's clever about it, could hand him CO NM NV FL and the White House.

The breakdown of the Clinton machine began in Iowa. They met the people of Iowa, they took a long, close look, as they always do, and Iowa rejected them. End of story. Instead of blaming Wolfson, Penn, Grunwald and the other mechanics, blame Bill and Hillary. Their air of entitlement took them down. Begala is really loathsome, blaming everyone but the candidate. He knows better.

Hubris was a problem for a number of candidates this season: Thompson, Rmoney, Biden, in his own way Richardson, and don't forget George Allen. When someone authentic emerges, like an Obama or Huckabee, the public loves it. Try as they might to fake it, the Clintons are elitists, and their presumption of superiority a real turnoff.

Time for a Change.

The breakdown of the Clinton machine began in Iowa. They met the people of Iowa, they took a long, close look, as they always do, and Iowa rejected them. End of story. Instead of blaming Wolfson, Penn, Grunwald and the other mechanics, blame Bill and Hillary. Their air of entitlement took them down. Begala is really loathsome, blaming everyone but the candidate. He knows better.

Hubris was a problem for a number of candidates this season: Thompson, Rmoney, Biden, in his own way Richardson, and don't forget George Allen. When someone authentic emerges, like an Obama or Huckabee, the public loves it. Try as they might to fake it, the Clintons are elitists, and their presumption of superiority a real turnoff.

I don't know if I'd call it the collapse of Hillary...it's more the shellacking of the Clintons.

Time for a Change.

Tep - correction - but the share of the youth vote of the total electorate in the 2004 presidential elections was the same as in 2000 -- and considering that overall turnout was up significantly, this means that the youth vote was up significantly too. In short, the youth vote did turn out, and since they voted for Kerry en masse, you can imagine how much worse his result would have been if the Democrats hadnt gone after this youth vote.

As for Obama's suggested weakness in the states you mention, it might be wise to take a look at the match-up polls on the state level. In Colorado, a Rasmussen poll this month has Obama leading McCain by 7, while Hillary is trailing him by 14. In Nevada, a Rasmussen poll this month has Obama leading McCain by 12, and Hillary trailing him by 9. In Florida, a Quinnipiac poll from this month puts both Dems a respectable two points behind McCain, while Rasmussen, again, has Obama leading big (by 16 points) and Hillary trailing (by 6 points). There havent been any match-up polls on state level for New Mexico this month, but in January Survey USA had both Hillary and Obama trailing McCain by 9.

In short, no evidence at all that Hillary would fare better than Obama against McCain in these states, and apart from New Mexico, Obama's electability against McCain is looking pretty good in them.

If you take a longer look at these state-level polls (say, taking into account all the ones done in the past  four months), it's clear that both Hillary and Obama have a regional strength and weakness, but they arent where you might expect them to be. Hillary does a lot better than Obama, overall, in these match-up polls against Republicans in the South, while Obama does a lot better than Hillary in the Mountains and Plains states of the West.

Michael, on the whole this post is a pretty good example of being a sore winner, but I think you really need to stamp your foot harder and whine louder as you shout, "I hate  you, I hate you, I hate you!!" at Hillary.

Tep, you're right about the crucial role of Hispanic voters.

But is it even possible to imagine Hillary winning Florida? I mean, maybe Obama wouldn't, either, but how many attack ads featuring Elian Gonzalez is it gonna take to make Florida solidly hostile territory for Hillary this fall?

Plus, I wouldn't discount Obama's ability to build his appeal with Latinos in the Southwest. He's now talking a better game on immigration than McCain, and on cultural values his charisma and comfortable Christianity jibe better with the community than McCain's dour presence and awkward high-church religiosity.

fougasseu - I agree - hubris killed alll the entitled lions, I'm amazed at how clearly the American people are fed up with that mentality.

rhubarbs,

Florida is gone for any Democrat. The only reason Gore ran so well was because he had Lieberman on the ticket and every bubbe and zayde put on the golf caps and hobbled down to the condo voting booth. Unfortunately, just enough of them got confused and ended up voting for Buchanan too.

jmkerr,

How does one turn a 17-point rout into a worrisome development for Obama, as you've attempted? I'd love to understand how these exit poll numbers can be so weirdly parsed as to almost make it sound like a Clinton win. Do you have to go to school for this?

Agreed on Florida.

local developments have taken Florida away from the Democrats. Jeb Bush was popular, and Crist is even more popular.

The same can be said for Virginia, Ohio, and Indiana - local developments strongly favor Democrats.

maxblum13

There's a long answer and a short answer. The short answer is: YES!

Good lord.  Everytime Obama wins another state, the Hillary supporters have something to say about the demographics, the allotment procedures or the election procedures.  Why is it so hard to understand that Obama is not just about fancy speeches (he does have a legislative record that backs up his stylistic claims) or any of the other superficial things that Hillary folks accuse him of.  He is advocating a change in political style that many, many of us have thought about for a long time and are glad to finally see being advocated ona  national scale - the idea that our political orientation derives from our engagement with facts and that we should be open to modifying it if better facts or evidence comes forward.  This doesn't mean one can't have very liberal views, but that one should be open to arguments from the other side that may prove us wrong AND by being open in that way, we are equipped to make arguments to support our on views with the idea that we might be able to actually change minds rather than just hammer out compromises between intractable ideologues.  All of Hillary's plans are worthless if she doesn't hae the ability or incliniation to reckon that some of her opponents are capable of being convinced of her views.  

Obama has a great strategy before him in dealing with McCain - he should say he always admired McCain's ability and willingness to get beyond ideology if he found evidence that overwhelmed his pre-existing views or the views his party says he is supposed to have and that we need more of this quality - someone who can stand for something they believe in, but doesn't insist on sticking to erroneous beliefs just because he is supposed to, because hs is afraid of offending his party, or for political capitoa.  McCain will either be forced to acknowledge the truth ot the compliment (thus damming him with the hard right) or disavow them (damning him with the tide of a new politics).  

The trick she didn't pull was corruption, possibly because Bill Clinton actively campaigned for some of the same corrupt Chicago Machine pols as Obama.

I think the kids will come out in the fall and vote for Obama -- my concern is that the geezers that Clinton is holding onto always come out and vote and that they go with McCain.  I also don't think all of Obama's independent voters are going to stick without the Hillary boogeyman.  As Krugman/Drum said recently, bubbles burst.  But McCain has base problems of his own, so it will be close!

The one thing I guarantee -- something is going to emerge as a campaign issue that will surprise us.  Who would have thought 2004 would have been as much about gay marriage as Iraq?

a question for jmkerr:

Who are all these white Democrat Party members who vote for Hillary who will refuse to support Barack in the general election?  I would think that all the white redneck Democrats who won't vote for a black presidential candidate defected to the Republican Party sometime during the last 30 odd years since Nixon initiated the southern strategy.  Who are all these white Democrats who go out to vote for a FEMALE presidential candidate who is as polarizing and liberally-minded as Hillary Clinton who will not also flock to Barack Obama in the general election?  Just how many people in this world do you think there are who are capable of pulling the lever for both Hillary and McCain against Barack?  It's like oil and water if you ask me.  The point is that Barack will no doubt get ALL of Hillary's supporters in the general election (except perhaps you, pccostello, and huntlib) plus much of the anti-Hillary voters (and a whole lot of them are Democrats) as well.  So where do you get off in asserting that Hillary will get more of the white vote in the general election than Barack and therefore is the better candidate?        

hey Cookie, maybe the best revenge Obama can take on Hillary is to have Bill Nelson on the ticket.

Oh irony that Democrats would lament the actual participation of young voters who actually are voting in primaries! This is where the American polis should be excited that young voters are actually participating in a primary. Many young voters don't fully understand the primary process to realize that this is how the party candidates are chosen. That, yes, if they vote it does count. Instead of grousing that the party stop relying on this small but growing demographic we should be encouraging these people to stay involved in the process instead of reinforcing a built-in disenchantment and disillusionment with the system.

As Tep pointed out about focusing on the Hispanic demographic...much of the problem for Obama with this demographic is that it doesn't vote as a block per se like Evangelicals but instead has to overcome the Clinton name recognition that many older Hispanic activists still hold. Mexican born naturalized citizens will vote differently than say Chicanos, South American Hispanics will vote differently as well. Overwhelming the older generations will vote for the more conservative candidate, yet younger, American-raised Hispanics will vote much like their non-Hispanic peers. I'm not so sure that the CO Hispanic block would automatically turn to McCain versus Obama int he general. The bigger issue there is convincing the white and Hispanic voters OUTSIDE of the Denver metro area, Boulder County, Eagle and Summit counties to vote Democrat this time. Keep in mind....CO bucked media trends and voted for Jerry Brown once and his Oakland roots don't necessarily fit with "Western-minded" folks. The last general election, many of the traditionally red counties of rural Colorado (western and southwester) started trending blue. Plus, with National Convention happening in Denver and getting both Salazar brothers to stump for Obama, he has a really good chance to win the state in the general.

I think now that Obama is building broader support among white working class, and building gains amongst certain Hispanic blocks, he still is working against the Clinton brand name amongst the Asian community which, certainly among the older generation, still have lingering racial prejudices against Obama.

In the end, I think Obama with his string of winners, plus his ability to run a tight, well organized campaign against the Clinton machine, has shown himself capable of continuing on in the general and take McCain on. I'm looking forward to those debates where the straight-talkin' flip-flop machine is picked apart.

"How does one turn a 17-point rout into a worrisome development for Obama, as you've attempted? "

It's not a worrisome development for Obama. It's a worrisome development for the Democrats, who never anticipated that their procedures would result in a candidate who can't win the white vote.

Yes, Hillary won the white Dem vote  "within the margin of error", but when you figure that there was a lot of same day registration of college students, that would distort the results.

But again, the real question is what does it say that he won in such a blowout but lost white Democrats? You complain that it's parsing, but who is deciding the election?

I also wonder why jmkerr thinks that the white female vote will not go for Obama if he's the candidate in the general election.  The assumption that they will either stay at home or vote for McCain seems a little unconvincing.  Put broadly, the job Obama has to do is to convince the key components of Clinton's supporters (women, Hispanics, blue-collar) that he won fair and square, and that they need to give him the surge in November to achieve a Democratic victory.  Can he do this?  It's not a cakewalk, but his record at winning people over is quite impressive so far, I'd say.

"And even if the media has at times been unfair to Hilary, well, cracking the national media's bizarre code is part of being a successful politician." So says our pundit, in parentheses, no less. If we treat you badly, it's your fault we don't treat you better. And the more unfairly we treat you,  the more it's your fault. After a journalist says something like that, why listen to him about anything? Senator Clinton didn't expect to have so strong an opponent; that can happen to anyone. But of course it must be a vast failing in her, if even ruthlessly prejudiced reporting directed against her would be her fault too! Journalists can't lose, and as long as they don't lose it doesn't matter who wins.

woland - I'm pretty sure huntlib is for Obama.

Riddle me this, jmkerr:

Of the 25 contests Obama has won so far, he's taken 55% or more of the vote 21 times (22, if you count his second victory in Washington's primary). Of the 14 states Hillary has won, she's taken 55% or more of the vote only 6 times. Are you saying that he's doing this without the white vote?

How do you score lopsided victories in 21 of 25 states without wide appeal? And why is his percentage of the white vote increasing, while Hillary's is decreasing?

Please share the Penn/Wolfson spin on this. I'm sure we'd all love to know how you do the math.

If Obama really wants to be like JFK, he should try to get Hillary to run as veep.  And before you all say Hillary wouldn't do it, does she have a better path to becomming President at this point?  

#$ER*(!@!  I should clarify -- I don't mean Hillary becomming President the way LBJ did, but that she'd be better off rebuilding her presidential cred than trying to run like Ted Kennedy did vs. Jimmy Carter in 1980 or waiting out an Obama administration or the like.

lymon1, at what age does geezerhood begin?  Because there are an awful lot of Boomers, and the first wave of them are past 60 now.  whither goest they?

no, no Kerr is right, with each successive blowout loss Hillary is showing how only she can unite the party together, that Republicans and independents will flock to her banner in November. We all know why, America loves whiny losers who do not concede defeat, but defiantly ignore it,  that views every caucus state as insignificant, and every black vote as meaningless. And that the best person to put up against an old, plodding speaker is a woman who is old and plodding as well (just not as old and plodding, that is the key)

To be honest, I am at a loss. With the flaming burnout of the Clinton campaign, every candidate from both parties whom I loathe, Hillary, Guiliani, Romney, are all gone. And the candidate I most prefer from each party, McCain and Obama have won. I can not imagine a better general election scenario in my lifetime. The reason I am at a loss is that one of these two must now lose in November. I hope McCain loses, but I will still feel sadness and regret. How different things would have been in 2000 had he won. And if he wins, I can go to bed at night without our President being a jabbering idiot. I am convinced that McCain will not be blinded by ideology or certainty, but will try to do what is best for all Americans, Republican and Democrat alike. I can live with that.

Barack Obama bested Hillary Clinton again last night by very wide margins (seventeen points in Wisconsin, 52 points in Hawaii), cutting into her core constituencies. (John Heilemann broke it all down .) Basically, Obama captured every demographic: men

All this demographic slicing and dicing has some relevance because of the Electoral College system, but not all that much.  American elections are relatively simple -- the enrolled Democrats and enrolled Republicans are a wash, except that turnout can give one or the other party an edge.  Ideally, you want a candidate who mobilizes your party enrollees while demobilizing the other side's, or an opponent who mobilizes your side while demobilizing her own.  McCain demobilizes Republicans because of his "conservative" problem.  Obama demobilizes Republicans (because they like him and some who couldn't pull the Dem lever will just stay home).  Bush demobilizes some Republicans who wonder how the party they supported has made such a mess of things.  The Democrats will be mobilized by Bush most of all (those huge turnouts for primaries) and by Obama's personality and political skills and not so much by McCain himself.  Advantage Obama.  Worth 2-3% of net margin.

The trick of course is to have a candidate who at least fights the mobilization battle to a draw while still being able to draw the voters in the middle.  You can win with a mobilization draw and a victory among independents, or a draw among independents and win in mobilization.  McCain has difficulty here because his efforts to protect his base are constantly going to risk his standing with the middle.  The very tug of war is going to be debilitating, and confusing , for his campaign.

In this case, I think Obama has the the edge with independents too, 1-3%.  McCain's age is going to work against him here as well as the tug of war with his base.  Although independents like to think they are more independent of mind, more generally they are just less interested in and aware of politics than the party voters.  The "issues" except as symbolism are going to matter least to them.  Obama's rhetoric and personality.  

This means Obama by 3-6%.  Take away 2% for racism (matters some but less so because of who votes and whose vote will actually change because of it).  I call it for Obama by 1-4%.  That is the race breacks for Obama between 50.5%-49.5% and 52%-48%.  Most likely case?  A bit north of 51% for Obama.

See you in November.

PS If Hillary were the candidate, she is at best a draw on mobilization (maybe a teeny edge for her because the Dems hate Bush a little more than the Rs hate Hillary and there are those Rs who are disgusted with Bush too) and at best a draw on swing voters because his biography at least covers hers.  Take away 2% for gender bias.  Hillary loses to McCain by 1-3%.  

Hillary as Veep?  Ridiculous.  That would be shooting himself in the foot bigtime.  Might appeal to the over 55 Democratic white women, but he'll get those anyway.

Obama needs a Veep who gives him military/foreign policy cred which is his biggest weakness (CIC) relative to McCain.  Hillary has no millitray/foreign policy cred.  Same weakness.  It would be doubling down.  Thing is, Obama cannot pick just any old general because it cannot be obvious that the guy is there just as a show.  Has to be someone who really can walk the walk and talk the talk.  Biden?  Webb?  You tell me.

The thing is that many Republicans and conservatives are gloating at how so many liberals, Democrats and members of the media have discovered "Clinton hatred" The Wall Street Journal editorial page has called it "The vast left wing conspiracy".  The suggestion being that there is an element of hypocrisy in this new found Clinton hatred suddenly appearing now.  Now that Obama's victory is all but certain, can we honestly come forward and assess the Hillary hatred, and be concerned about sexism? Let me be clear about this, the Obama campaign won this fairly, squarely and honestly. There is just an element of ruthlessness in some who speak in his name. The only serious blunder - from Hillary's camp -  in this campaign was Bill Clinton's comment after the South Carolina loss, and even after that, I sincerely believe that on the issue of race and bigotry Bill Clinton has a good heart. I hope that the general election campaign doesn't dissolve into charges of racism at McCain and left wing defeatism at Obama. Can we take a brief moment of satisfaction at the quality of our presidential contenders, before the inevitable demonization begins? Sigh.

Geezerhood (for voting purposes), I'll say, starts at the age the person starts thinking "which one of these candidates is most likely to touch my social security and medicare benefits" because they are either receiving them or planning to receive them in the near future.  

Where do boomers go?  I don't know, but baby boomers are the greediest generation in American history (ooh, I'm in for it now!) and will do whatever protects their entitlements the most.  In general  I think most Clinton voters in general go with Obama, but they are far from the lock that a couple of people wrote above.  And there's still a lot of dynamics to come: what if McCain picks a woman (Kay Bailey Hutchison), does that cleave off some voters?

roi, Bill Nelson of Florida. IIRC he is a big Hillaryite so it would be a great olive branch to that wing of the party, and he is not up for re-election this term. The only downside is if the Dems win we lose one Senate seat, but worth it I think.

Brad Henry would top my list for Obama's VP. Or a white guy with executive experience and security cred from the Southwest of Mountain states. But since I can't think of anyone who fits that bill, I fall back on Brad Henry. Are there any Democratic governors with military experience?

I think the fact that the McCain campaign's most pointed dig at Obama on security so far has been that he's too aggressive in trying to kill Bin Laden, I'm not all that worried about the Dem ticket's "security credentials." Plus, Obama has shown that he's very good at turning image attacks back on the attacker, so GOP security attacks will come right back to making McCain look scarier than Bush on Iraq and weaker than Bush on al-Qaeda, and those are fights Democrats can win.

I think the economy and executive competence are more important for Obama to shore up, along with a little demographic NASCAR appeal. So the successful white male governor of Oklahoma would just about fit the bill.

wes clark for VP.

Or Biden. Unless the Delaware gov is a republicn...

Blackton, I certainly see your point about Nelson, but unless Nelson by himself were enough to take Florida, I think he is not the best pick.  There are plenty of other ways to mollify the Hillaryites and Nelson does not fill the big hole in Obama's bio versus McCain.  Bill Clinton could get away with it because of the end of the cold war.  Now we are in a shooting war.  Plus, Nelson went to Yale.  That may seem like a small thing, but a Harvard-Yale ticket is really not a good idea.  Obama's story of making it is one thing.  A ticket that just looks like a perpetuation of the elitist lock on the presidency -- you have to go back to Reagan-Mondele for a campaign where no one went to Harvard or Yale.

lymon, McCain picking a (credible) woman would cleave off some Democratic votes. There are a _lot_ of Democratic women who support Hillary despite disagreeing with her on issues like the war and family financial security, and some of them would vote for McCain-Woman over Obama-Man. And I don't say that to condemn silly women or anything: I've voted against my own policy preferences from time to time in order to back a Republican woman candidate against a Democratic man in state and local races. There is a legitimate argument that it's worth sacrificing short-term policy preferences for the longer-term goal of including more women in the political decision-making process, though I know Stanley Fish would call me nasty names for thinking such a thing.

That's why I think McCain absolutely has to pick a woman, and preferably a younger woman, for his ticket. I think Kay would be too close to a Liddy Dole pick that telegraphs inside-Washington limited vision instead of breath-of-fresh-air new thinking. In fact, if I were McCain, I would consider nominating a small number of female VP candidates and then asking the GOP convention to choose for him. Guarantee press interest in the convention, reinforce his reputation as an institutional and procedural reformer, and put the GOP in the position of choosing among a slate of strong women candidates in the late summer months.

Rhubarbs,

I don't think the issue is right-wing attacks.  It is a question of biography which has more impact on the middle or so-called "swing voters."  People have to feel comfortable about national security when they vote for a candidate.  For the party enrollees, that is more of a policy issue.  For the independents, it is more about the symbols.  Brad Henry would be sensible choice.  What about a white guy with security cred from Ohio?  

"Yes, We Will"  Check out the Youtube video of HRC trying to lead a crowd in a "Yes, We Will" chant.  Unbelievable.

www.youtube.com/watch

Didn't Obama get a higher percentage of the WI vote than McCain?

roidubouloi,

Actually, if you consider VP candidates, there hasn't been an election since 1968 where no canddate was a graduate of Harvard or Yale.

Bush in 84 and 80 is a Yale grad, Ford in 76 was a Yale Law grad, Shriver in 72 went to Yale. In 68, Nixon had graduated from Whitter and Duke Law, Agnew went to Johns Hopkins and University of Baltimore Law; Humprey went to Minnesota and got a masters from LSU, and Muskie went to Bates College and Cornell Law.

You have to go to 1964 to have an Ivy-free election.

I think Richardson would be a good VP nominee

Okay, I'm supporting Obama, and I'm delighted about his victories.  But I'm too cautious (or pessimistic?) to believe that voters in Ohio and Texas will deliver the knockout punch to Hillary on March 4.  While Obama may be gaining in the polls in these states, and while the delegates are distributed (roughly) proportionately, it's difficult for me to conceive of the race coming effectively to an end on March 4.  And then there's my delegate-rich state, Pennsylvania, that's been leaning Hillaryward and which holds its primary on April 22.

If I'm not mistaken, college-educated Democrats tend to be more pro-business than in Wisconsin: doesn't that play more to Hillary's perceived strengths than to Obama's?  The consensus has held, furthermore, that Hispanics will lean toward Clinton.  I realize that these two groups don't represent all Democratic voters in the state, but perhaps they serve as examples of some challenges that I imagine the Obama campaign faces there.  The upshot is,  I'm not sure how the Obama campaign can put together a winning coalition in Texas.  I hope they do--I hope I'm wrong--but I just don't see it happening yet.

Now, if Obama wins one of the big states outright, it probably is over for Hillary.  Thus far, however, he's been chalking up a lot of impressive victories in small states while successfully managing expectations in the big ones (California, New York).  And, to be sure, Obama has played a brilliant tortoise to Hillary's hare (there's a pun in there somewhere...), doggedly chalking up victories and accumulating delegates in the small states while the Clinton machine bets on the big ones.  But, from my vantage point, all I can see is a protracted battle lasting into the spring, if not up to the convention.

There are two types of people who might care about where a Presidential candidate went to school:

1) An educated elite that worries about consolidation of power in their own hands

2) Conspiracy nuts

Neither group is large enough to worry about and Obama will probably win group one anyway.  For most Americans, Harvard == Good School and that's it.

Obama nearly split the hispanic vote last night. He almost won New Mexico. He was competitive in Nevada, despite having almost no time to campaign there. And he destroyed Hillary in Colorado. Clearly, the Latino vote is drifting his way.

Obama's naysayers, including Tep, have consistently been wrong. I encourage them to exercise a little analytical humility before they write him off re his ability to pick up this or that demographic. He's making gains all over the map: women, >$50k voters, hispanics, asians, white males, etc.

The upside to Richardson on the ticket is that he could presumably pull New Mexico firmly into the Obama basket in November.  The downside is that he's something of a loose cannon, and all we need is a story about him fondling some woman's knee under the table at a planning session to put the campaign in the ditch (veep nominees can become unexpectedly problematic:  never forget -- for those old enough to remember -- Tom Eagleton!).

ratnerstar,

I'm not exactly disagreeing with you, but I think you would be surprised at how frequently and successfully the GOP plays the "effete and elite" tune -- they sure as hell did it to Gore and Kerry.  Of course, there are many ironies.  W., for example, attended both Yale and Harvard, but he was keenly aware of the necessity of negating that part of his bio with his good ol' boy shtick and did so successfully.  Obama can count on the left-wing elite.  He has a compelling biography for a lot of the middle.  He needs to attract blue-collar workers.  Hillary has done that despite her pedigree.  It is a bit mysterious, but I think it has to do with Bill and Monica.  That is a part of her story that blue collar women especially could identify with -- trapped by life but soldiering on.  I think men appreciated the fact that she ostensibly forgave him and then stuck with him (not in reality of course -- they have a political partnership).  Obama needs to be thoughtful about this dynamic in his picks.

New Texas Poll (2/20)

American Research Group

Obama 48

Clinton 42

Granted, ARG is not the best in the business, but this would be in keeping with trends.

I agree that Richardson is a loose cannon. And a bit of an empty suit, to boot. Despite the length of his resume, he really doesn't come off as very smart, IMHO.

I think you're right about that, roid: the GOP gets a lot of mileage out of the effete charge and they'll no doubt try it on Obama too.  I think he's pretty immune to it, but that won't stop them from giving it a shot.  And yes, he should be looking for a VP who will help him with blue collar workers.

I just really don't think school has much to do with it.  Effeteness has a look and feel to it.  If you don't have it, then it doesn't matter if you went to Yale.  If you do, then you could have graduated from West Texas Tech and you'll still be pegged.

straussguy,

I agree with you.  The celebration is a bit premature, but fun.  If Obama wins any one of Texas, Ohio, or Pennsylvania, I think it is over for Hillary.  If he manages to keep all three very close, that would be good.  The main thing though is the total popular vote.  If Obama has more delegates and more of the popular vote than Hillary, then I also think it is over.  The party insiders will rallly around him and tell the Clintons to stick it.  If, however, he has more pledged delegates -- likely -- and she wins more of the popular vote -- possible -- then the super-delegates really are up for grabs and I hesitate to predict the outcome.  The establishment certainly prefers that Hillary be president, but I think they are very nervous about the indications, well-grounded indications in my opinion, that Obama has a better chance of beating McCain than Hillary and Hillary has a good chance of losing.  Whether their flight impulse (Hillary, the comfortable insider) or their fight impulse (Obama, the political warrior) will prevail, is anyone's guess.  

I think Hillary will lose, period, to McCain, but the damage to the party need not be great if the delegates are close and she can at least claim the larger popular vote.  That makes her bid for super-delegates credible.  If she has neither the delegates nor the popular vote and the party elders do not put her down, it will be a bloodbath at the convention and the ill will created will more than likely doom the Democrats no matter who is nominated after the fight is over.  I sincerely hope that Gore, Kerry, Edwards, Dean, Pelosi, Reid, Biden, Schumer, Emmanuel, et alia understand what will be required of them.

McBush would be a one-term president, so the VP choice will have to be okay with the Bush family. Look for someone like Rob Portman. (It's all about Crony Capitalism.)

If Obama picks an Ivy League running mate he'll lose. "The Uncivil War: How a New Elite is Destroying our Democracy" by David Lebedoff really nails it. I think a running mate who is as inarticulate as he is articulate would be perfect.

Bloomberg. (Why the heck not?)

Wes Clark is a Clintonista. Gonna be either Warner, Sebelius or Webb.

Jobeek, Rhubarbs - re the youth vote, yes, 18-29 year-olds' participation increased from 43% in 2000 to 51.6% in 2004, but _overall_ turnout increased by about the same margin, which meant that, true to form, youth participation lagged far behind that for every other age group.

Turnout across all age groups, 2004: 60% of eligible voters

Turnout among 18-29 year-olds, 2004: 51.6%

Note that the above implies particpation significantly north of 60% for older voters.

Now, as to 18-29 year-olds' share of eligible voters, that didn't budge from 2000 to 2004 but the long-term trend is toward an increasingly older electorate.

The 20-29 cohort's share of total population shrunk from 16.2% to 13.6% during the _1990s alone_.  I can't find the exact figures but IIRC this share in the 1970s was north of 20% of total US population, which is to say that the youth vote has fallen off a cliff since the boomers' salad days.

Now, there is indeed a slight reversal of trend projected but almost all of the growth in young voters is in young HISPANIC voters, which only proves my point: the key demographic now and for the next generation will be hispanics, not youth voters. Given that the Republicans have shown both a fierce desire and tremendous effectiveness at increasing their share of this, the most important swing vote of all, I'll pass on the invitation to drink the Youth Will Carry US kool-aid.

This country really needs to have a serious debate about our broken relationship with Mexico.

Also how we can help the children of the millions of recent mexican immigrants here succeed in school and help us reverse the Walmartization/Mexification of our economy (= sh*t wages, sh*t services in exch for super-cheap consumer stuff).

ratnerstar, I can't tell you how often people I know in Iowa talked about the whole Ivy League candidates thing last winter. At least in that state, it really seemed to be a meme gong around. And not in a conspiracy-nut kind of way, but in terms of saying, look at what these egghead elites have done to our country. I mean, one George W. Bush really does drag down the value of an Ivy League education.

Another thing this plays into is growing resentment at America's declining social and economic mobility. Most people lack the personal, comparative experience to understand that a British child born into poverty is more likely to raise himself into the middle class or even the wealthy elite than is an American child. But people away from the coasts are consistently seeing their children losing ground relative to their own experiences at the same age, while people with elite educations seem to be forming an impregnable national ruling and moneyed class. It's all impressionistic, but it's a real vibe out there and it's based on real, fundamental changes in the contours of American society.

Which I only say by way of warning, don't be so quick to dismiss anti-Ivy League sentiment as the concern of rednecks and nuts.

Chan the adman could probably tell us best, but my take is that the "effete" charge doesn't stick to a guy who can easily and flawlessly deliver a Monday Night Football play-by-play.

Regardless of his academic dog tags, Obama's pretty clearly a southside (not Hyde Park) Chicago kind of guy. The man smokes, his gait is loping, and most important of all, he doesn't harbor any yuppie affectations for windsurfing, winetasting, trips to Provence etc.

IMHO his achilles heels are 1) potential inability to get more than 50% of southwestern hispanics vs McCain, and 2) the lameness of his economic policy, which from what I've seen is bland where it should be daring and daring where it should be conservative.

Warner would be fine. Preferably, Obama should pick a governor, a mayor, or a business(wo)man.

Or an actor.  ;-)

doesn't matter that Wes Clark is a clintonista. He's always been respectful to Obama.

It can't be Mark Warner. He's running for Senate in Virginia. We'd lose that seat if he didn't run.

It can't be Webb. He can't quit his senate seat after 1.5 years. we'd lose that seat if he resigned (though Kaine could appoint a temporary replacement).

Did you see Sebelius give the state of the union rebuttal? As bunk would say, "weak sh$t"

Rhub- I'll defer to you on that, given that my only visit to Iowa occurred over a dozen years ago when I was considering going to Grinnell college.  Maybe there are a lot of people out there who really hate the Ivy League.  But my experience -- and I've run in some pretty non-elite crowds -- is that the "Ivy League problem" is most pronounced among people who actually attended an Ivy League school.

Well, them and crazies.

Can't be Sebelius...can't have too many furrin names on the ticket.

Blackie, thanks for your kind words about Sen. McCain above.  Bill Nelson, according to my wife the professional (20 years as a Congressional staffer) Democrat, is an empty suit.  Not him, and you'd lose a Senate seat and never get it back.

If I were picking a VP for BHO - Biden or Richardson, I guess.  He needs a foreign policy guy, because that's what scares people about Obama (or it will by November) - he has zero fp experience, and there is no evidence I'm aware of that he has thought deeply about the world and our place in it.  He does not inspire confidence with his protectionist riffs in his stump speech.  How would he change NAFTA?  To what ends?  Would he change China's status as an MFN partner?  The world, and our future challenges in it, are bigger than Iraq alone.

I hope someone from the Obama campaign is at least reading this.

McCain can follow tep's line and choose a Hispanic.  Not a bad pick at all for him as a Dead White Guy.  Who though?  Would have to be someone whom people really see as president since succession is a real issue for McCain.  Or McCain can try to solidify one of the other two legs of the Republican stool (I just assume that he can hold the hawks without effort).  I don't know how to call this. Maybe if I think about it a while, or maybe not.  I thought Romney would have been a good pick for him to solidify the kleptocrat wing of the party, but maybe Bush Sr. is already taking care of that for him.  Besides, I am increasingly persuaded by recent articles that in the end the Evangelical wing can't stomach a Mormon.  Okay, that means McCain wants a devote Hispanic Catholic who is perceived as ready to be president "Day One" as HRC likes to say in the event that McCain cannot survive the excitement of an inauguration speech.  Who is that?

Obama needs a white guy, not Dead, no question.  But not someone who appears like he would compete with Obama.  The country is sick to death of "co-presidents," Republican or Democrat (another part of HRC's problem actually).   Biden has to be on the short list.  Clark too, although he is such a dreadful campaigner (to my enormous regret as I thought he might be the anti-Bush the last time around).  Certainly not Edwards, never.  I am dissuaded about Warner and Webb by the arguments above.  Indeed, no Dem senator who would surrender a seat.  Do we really want to take even a chance on 59-41 in the senate?  Dean and Schumer will prevail on this, I think.

What is the view here on whether Biden (no Ivy background, though Delaware almost counts as that by definition) has sufficient foreign policy/military cred, not with the issue-oriented elite, but with the country at large?  And Biden isn't a very good campaigner either.  Clark would certainly be a bone to the Clintonistas.  Someone mentioned Zinni a while back.  Is that plausible?  I don't know that much about him other than the fact that he seems to take no BS and speak no BS.

While the tapes are still spinning on your UNIVACS, would somebody please tell me in two or more words why Bloomberg wouldn't be a plausible choice for VP? (Aside from the numbers.)

Bobby Jindal is the GOP's Obama. Actually, he's smarter and more accomplished than Obama. He has significant executive experience, and he knows more about the nuts and bolts of healthcare than the three candidates combined.

I think McCain's age and health are huge problems for him, esp vs Obama, and he will see the need to take a risk and bring a VP who's young, nonwhite, and whipsmart about economics. That's Jindal. If there were an Intrade market on Jindal's chances, I'd take those odds.

90% of this thread must be written by Ivy League graduates.

I've never met anyone who liked anyone from the Ivy League except other Ivy Leaguers. (Sorry.)

If Obama picks an Ivy guy or gal, he loses, it's that simple.

My personal choice: Anthony Zinni (younger than McBush)

An acceptable choice: Bill Nelson (younger than McBush)

My out-of-left-field but love to see it choice: Josiah Bunting III (younger than McBush)

The smart choice: Evan Bayh

Wow, ever since dschungu left us, I really didn't think we'd get a repeat of the 'Obama is a minstrel show' argument, but jmkerr is sure tryin'.

National demographics have changed, exactly 0 people have predicted the effect of these changes, and we'll only really know in hindsight.

Is it absolutely necessary that Obama 'wins' the 'working class white vote' in order to win? Of course not. The question is, how close does he have to make it? -5% of McCain, -10% of McCain? I haven't seen anyone make any kind of convincing argument.

jmkerr seems to think Obama will need to largely match McCain with the working class white vote, Digby is on the fence, she's not sure, Thomas Schaller thinks jmkerr is wrong, it looks like we'll see who's right in November.

Biden on trivial issues sounds trivial, but when he speaks on foreign policy he comes across, instantly and effortlessly, as the lone adult in the room. No BS, no recycled talking points fed him by advisors, just mastery of the facts and a gift for zeroing in on the crux of the matter while keeping an eye on the long term.  

I can't imagine Obama would choose anyone else, frankly.

I'm with you, tep.  I would have voted for Biden in the primary if he had stayed in (also, if MD hadn't lost my voter registration when I moved here) and I'd love to see him on Obama's ticket.  He puts his foot in his mouth occasionally, but I think that can be managed.

Wes Clark wouldn't be bad either.

I looked up Jindal's bio and Tep has convinced me completely that he is the top pick for McCain.  That would shut the Limbaugh's up, he should be totally acceptable to the religious wing except the racist group that can't swallow Jindal's ancestry.  Not quite as desirable as an Hispanic Bobby Jindal, but close enough.

However, the claim that Jindal is "smarter than Obama" is pretty silly.  Jindal could never have pulled off what Obama has. Not ever.

Just looked up a bit of Zinni's bio.  Certainly seems plausible to me, although I have never heard him speak.   He does seem to have considerable experience as a public speaker and a 4-star who is more or less on the same page as Obama on Iraq has a lot of appeal.  

Of course tep is right about Biden's qualities, but does he play in a campaign?  Not at all clear, and the evidence is to the contrary.  

tomeg:

Other than some age and gravitas, Bloomberg brings zero to the ticket.  He's from New York which is already a Democratic lock.  He's Jewish (don't get huffy, so am I).  There is just so much diversity that the Dems need on one ticket.  No need to overcome every American prejudice all at once (same reason a woman won't do).  Bloomberg brings nothing in terms of foreign policy/military credibilitly which is Obama's weakspot.  And, he is an unprepossessing campaigner -- short, kind of unfortunate voice.  Nope.  Not Bloomberg.

By the way, don't take my hesitance about Biden as anything less than complete respect.  He was my first pick for pres until it became clear his campaign was simply never going to get out of the single digits.

Gore.   Ha ha ha just kidding.

I'm partially with Tep -- Biden is Obama's best pick, but I don't think he's that much of a no-brainer.  In fact, if it weren't for the importance of the foreign policy thing, I'd make a play to flip a moderate NE republican like Susan Collins.  (William Cohen?)

Forgot to mention that Zinni is a Pennsylvanian who went to Villanova.  That's not bad.

Clark grew up in Arkansas, but was born in Chicago of half-Jewish ancestry.  I don't think he helps much with a "southern strategy" by virtue of his geography.

Jindal is an Obama fan. I wonder whether he'd want to run against him.

You folks are preparing a funeral  while the body is still waking around , suffering only a mild hed cold. Don't count out Hillary quite yet. She has established an effective firewall in Texas and Ohio.

And frankly, I think you guys should reconsider your support for Obama. While  he might indeed be charismatic, he is woefully unprepared to be POTUS.  With Hillary as Prez, she will not have a learning curve, she is   smart, and finally she will be prepared to battle the right wing from day one.

Barack will be rolled by them. He has no idea how ruthless the right wing. Hillary does know, and better yet, she knows how to foil them

Guys, I said it before &  I will say it again. The last thing we need is another Jimmy Carter.

Hillary for President!!

Flipping a Republican is not going to happen.  Obama doesn't need to do more to prove his "bi-partisanship."  The opportunity cost of flipping a Republican to do that rather than addressing some other weakness or need would be far too great.