So Obama is almost as good as Hillary, or even in some ways better (i.e. twice as many donors).
I think the +4 to 33% sounds about right for this turn of events though, as my friends know, I'm bullish on Obama.
What I wonder is how much wiggle room there is in reporting these numbers (for example counting the donation in the quarter when the "Ranger" collects it or, in the quarter when its turned over to the campaign) because if they had a choice the Obama camp made the right decision by coming in short of Hillary in fund raising. (no facts here; just speculation. You report, I decide).
Think of it this way: Lets assume that Obama eventually wins the nomination, at what point would it be optimal to jump ahead in the polls? Certainly not this early. On one hand if he is the front runner then he will be looked to for leadership i.e. "...Bush just vetoed the `Surge Splurge' because it set a timetable for withdrawal what's the Democratic response... Obama?... Hey Obama, it got vetoed again I said what's the answer!... Obama!"
He will have much less room to run as the anti-washington/idealism guy if he is a key washington deal-maker or even worse a key washington deadlock-maker. On the other hand lets say Washington doesn't collapse over budget impasses and gets some things done like immigration reform, and Obama is at the center of it, his biggest weakness, namely his inexperience, becomes less of a liability.
So here is my answer. The odds are people hate each other in Washington; a lot. A good bet is that not a lot gets done. So if Obama gets front runner status early, a lot of the shine comes off as gridlock ensues. Optimally for the Obama camp they should work the "up and comming" angle as long as possible -- ideally even through the end of the year. Its strategically smart for the reasons I just gave, and simply works better with the overall motif of the campaign. There will be plenty of time to work the `I can Command' angle after the nomination race is over.
Will it break this way? Look, a lot of Hillary's support comes from two places:
1) people who like Bill a lot and think she's fine
2) Democratic party establishment who are afraid not to support her and think she'd be a fine president anyway.
In other words a whole lot of hollow support. Its just a question of how long it takes the passion of the people in the Obama camp to undermine the inertia of Hillary, and even if it is strong enough to overcome it. I mean Kerry beat Dean remember?
Alright enough with the slapdash analysis, on to the unjustifiably specific predictions. Obama is in the lead in polls by the early fall -- he's ahead at intrade by summer; people start to lose a little faith as he is recast as "front runner" while politics looks like its falling apart since the number of vetos, shall we say, rises dramatically. (Number of Bush vetos: the next Intrade market? You heard it here first!) Obama falls back but still manages to win the nomination.
You know how I know? Imagine yourself in a voting both, no one else is there. You look down at the ballot -- the name "Barack Obama" stares right back at you. I think the average democratic primary voter finds that possibility too exciting to pass up - even after a long campaign.
1 comment:
I'm with you most of the way on this. Obama's entrenched, and the next 18 months could get very ugly between Bush and Congress. What I've seen since his election to the Senate is moderating and hedging, but nothing bold. Can he make the right calculation to build "mainstream" confidence in him while not losing the lefty support?
But I think the people demand more grounded analysis. I say this hinges on the answers to two questions.
1) Are Congressional Democrats up or down one year from now? Intrade likes Democrats retaining control of both houses by a pretty strong margin, which surprises me. My perspective is that Bush is still stronger as long as he's setting the terms of the debate, which he's doing. Until the phrases "war on terror" and "support our troops" do not appear on CNN broadcasts, Bush is stronger. In this mode, the Democratic congress is always on the defensive, always explaining how, no, they're not trying to embolden terrorists and of course they also believe in... whatever. If that's what we have in a year, I think that hurts Obama more than HRC or Edwards, who each seem well-prepared to embrace centrist rhetoric. But if national politics realigns in a dramatic way along a Murtha - Pelosi - Carter kind of flying V, then Obama emerges really strong.
2) Not unrelated: Will there still be US troops in Iraq in June 2008 in an occupying/ combat posture without a strict withdrawal set? Who gets the nomination in that case? No one's obvious, I think, but to me it sets the same scene as 2004. Democrats get nervous, start thinking about electability, circle the wagons, move way right. So can you get Kerry or Clark back in? Does Edwards look the best? I just can't see HRC or Obama looking strong in that scenario.
Post a Comment