Friday, June 06, 2008
Weather or not...
My awesome post on Hispanic voters isn't getting written today, due to tornado-related chaos....
Thursday, June 05, 2008
WHAT DOES IT ALL MEAN?
Basically, just this:
Given that the Democratic Wave that took over Ohio in 2006 is liable to continue, the Kerry states should be safe, and Obama is competitive in Iowa, Missouri, Colorado, and Virginia in ways that Kerry wasn't, I feel pretty safe about our chances this year. Hell, Hispanics might give us Nevada and New Mexico, and African-Americans North Carolina and Georgia, just for gravy.
Given that the Democratic Wave that took over Ohio in 2006 is liable to continue, the Kerry states should be safe, and Obama is competitive in Iowa, Missouri, Colorado, and Virginia in ways that Kerry wasn't, I feel pretty safe about our chances this year. Hell, Hispanics might give us Nevada and New Mexico, and African-Americans North Carolina and Georgia, just for gravy.
Who are Hillary's voters?
As near as I can tell, Hillary drew support from four main groups of voters, understanding who they are and why they supported her will be key to Obama unifying the party and winning a landslide victory over McCain in the fall. Contrary to the current wailing, I think this task will be relatively easy for Obama, even more so now that Hillary's going to concede by the end of the week. The four branches of Hillary's support:
Generic Democrat
For those of us obsessively following the campaign, the mindset of "Generic Democrat" voters is very difficult to understand. They're Democrats who don't really follow politics, but they like to vote. They tend to vote for the frontrunner or the familiar face — why take a chance with somebody new? I like being a democrat, and the people we've got now. In 1984 these people kept Mondale from losing to Hart, they crushed Bill Bradley in 2000, and are responsible for Kerry's huge margins after he won Iowa and New Hampshire in 2004. Hillary Clinton would have won the nomination on the strength of these voters alone, if she hadn't voted for the war. That let Obama win Iowa, and peel away enough of these voters to stall her movement. In Wisconsin and Virginia these voters went for Obama, as it appeared he was cruising to the nomination. She managed to win them back in some of the later primaries, but not by enough. Obama has these votes in the bag for November. The sharp uptick in recent polls showing that Democrats prefer Obama to Clinton decisively comes from defections among this group.
Clintonites
Clinton has a lot of fans in the Democratic party. Bill Clinton, that is. There was a non-trivial subset of Democrats this year who thought they were voting for Bill's third term. For whatever reason (the 90s economy, Clinton's vanquishing of Bush in 1992, still pissed about impeachment, etc.) these people desperately wanted a Clinton Restoration, and much like Hillary, they're pissed she didn't get it. Obama should have no trouble getting most of these voters by himself, and after the Clintons inevitably endorse and work for him, he'll get the rest.
Older Democratic Women
Whoo, boy, was Gloria Steinem pissed about young feminists supporting Obama. The meme "Vote your mama, not Obama" says it all. The Whitehouse project was started years ago, with the not-so-subtle goal of election Hillary to the Presidency. Many older (the younger cohort supported Obama) Democratic (Republican women hate Hillary) women viewed her as their best, and maybe only, shot for a generation. I happen to think that this is massively incorrect, and that the next competitive Democratic primary race will probably feature several highly qualified women, but that's beside the point. Hillary's women are pissed now, and unlike the Clintonites, her endorsement probably won't mean dick. Most of them will come back to Obama, however, because they are all Democrats, and a few months spent examining McSurge's record and platform (100% pro-life voting record, for one) should do the trick.
Of course, Obama could make life a lot easier for both him and them by putting a gal on the ticket, and there are several good choices available.
Anti-Obama voters
Now here's the tough nut to crack. There were a lot more Anybody-but-Hillary voters in this season than Anti-Obama voters. While misogynism played a minor role in the Anti-Hillary contingent, the biggest reasons I heard were Anti-War (my reason) and Anti-Dynasty (humorously offered by people who've spent years idolizing Ted Kennedy).
For Obama, on the other hand, race was the biggest factor. In most of the late primaries she won (Ohio, Pennsylvania, Kentucky, West Virginia, and Indiana), her margin of victory was smaller than the number of white voters who told pollsters that race was a factor in their decision. And that's just the ones that admitted they were a little racist to a stranger.
In addition to the racists, there were Republican crossovers that wouldn't vote for either in the general who voted for Clinton in order to hurt Obama, or because she was their genuine preference considering the two. Exit polling shows that Obama won Republican crossovers before McCain clinched the nomination, and lost them afterwards. Needless to say, this is a vote that neither of them would've gotten in November.
These voters who voted for Clinton over Obama are probably lost to him. Luckily, they're nearly all concentrated in the South, and the Democratic wave this year will offset any losses that Obama might have in the Kerry states. The one trouble spot is Florida, the oldest state in the union (full of what my brother calls "the Greatest Racist Generation"), where Obama will probably not be competitive.
One more potential problem
While Obama garnered almost complete black support during the primaries, he lost the Hispanic vote to Clinton. I was worried about this, since if our margins amongst Hispanics look like 2006, we'll crush McCain, but if he's able to get Bush 2004 levels of support, he might be able to squeek through.
So what kind of voters are Hispanics? More precisely, are they Generic Dems who supported Clinton early on because she was the Democratic Brand or Anti-Obama voters, projecting typical inner city black/brown division onto the national stage? If Hispanics are racist against Blacks, that's a big problem for us, because taking Nevada, New Mexico, Iowa, and Colorado requires strong Hispanic support.
We can worry no longer though, as recent polls show that Obama would win a re-vote in California. The Republican party's 2006 attempt to brand Hispanics as Untermenschen has aligned a solid majority of them with brand Democrat, and as soon as Obama becomes fixed in popular consciousness as the leader of the party, he'll lock up the Hispanic vote.
Generic Democrat
For those of us obsessively following the campaign, the mindset of "Generic Democrat" voters is very difficult to understand. They're Democrats who don't really follow politics, but they like to vote. They tend to vote for the frontrunner or the familiar face — why take a chance with somebody new? I like being a democrat, and the people we've got now. In 1984 these people kept Mondale from losing to Hart, they crushed Bill Bradley in 2000, and are responsible for Kerry's huge margins after he won Iowa and New Hampshire in 2004. Hillary Clinton would have won the nomination on the strength of these voters alone, if she hadn't voted for the war. That let Obama win Iowa, and peel away enough of these voters to stall her movement. In Wisconsin and Virginia these voters went for Obama, as it appeared he was cruising to the nomination. She managed to win them back in some of the later primaries, but not by enough. Obama has these votes in the bag for November. The sharp uptick in recent polls showing that Democrats prefer Obama to Clinton decisively comes from defections among this group.
Clintonites
Clinton has a lot of fans in the Democratic party. Bill Clinton, that is. There was a non-trivial subset of Democrats this year who thought they were voting for Bill's third term. For whatever reason (the 90s economy, Clinton's vanquishing of Bush in 1992, still pissed about impeachment, etc.) these people desperately wanted a Clinton Restoration, and much like Hillary, they're pissed she didn't get it. Obama should have no trouble getting most of these voters by himself, and after the Clintons inevitably endorse and work for him, he'll get the rest.
Older Democratic Women
Whoo, boy, was Gloria Steinem pissed about young feminists supporting Obama. The meme "Vote your mama, not Obama" says it all. The Whitehouse project was started years ago, with the not-so-subtle goal of election Hillary to the Presidency. Many older (the younger cohort supported Obama) Democratic (Republican women hate Hillary) women viewed her as their best, and maybe only, shot for a generation. I happen to think that this is massively incorrect, and that the next competitive Democratic primary race will probably feature several highly qualified women, but that's beside the point. Hillary's women are pissed now, and unlike the Clintonites, her endorsement probably won't mean dick. Most of them will come back to Obama, however, because they are all Democrats, and a few months spent examining McSurge's record and platform (100% pro-life voting record, for one) should do the trick.
Of course, Obama could make life a lot easier for both him and them by putting a gal on the ticket, and there are several good choices available.
Anti-Obama voters
Now here's the tough nut to crack. There were a lot more Anybody-but-Hillary voters in this season than Anti-Obama voters. While misogynism played a minor role in the Anti-Hillary contingent, the biggest reasons I heard were Anti-War (my reason) and Anti-Dynasty (humorously offered by people who've spent years idolizing Ted Kennedy).
For Obama, on the other hand, race was the biggest factor. In most of the late primaries she won (Ohio, Pennsylvania, Kentucky, West Virginia, and Indiana), her margin of victory was smaller than the number of white voters who told pollsters that race was a factor in their decision. And that's just the ones that admitted they were a little racist to a stranger.
In addition to the racists, there were Republican crossovers that wouldn't vote for either in the general who voted for Clinton in order to hurt Obama, or because she was their genuine preference considering the two. Exit polling shows that Obama won Republican crossovers before McCain clinched the nomination, and lost them afterwards. Needless to say, this is a vote that neither of them would've gotten in November.
These voters who voted for Clinton over Obama are probably lost to him. Luckily, they're nearly all concentrated in the South, and the Democratic wave this year will offset any losses that Obama might have in the Kerry states. The one trouble spot is Florida, the oldest state in the union (full of what my brother calls "the Greatest Racist Generation"), where Obama will probably not be competitive.
One more potential problem
While Obama garnered almost complete black support during the primaries, he lost the Hispanic vote to Clinton. I was worried about this, since if our margins amongst Hispanics look like 2006, we'll crush McCain, but if he's able to get Bush 2004 levels of support, he might be able to squeek through.
So what kind of voters are Hispanics? More precisely, are they Generic Dems who supported Clinton early on because she was the Democratic Brand or Anti-Obama voters, projecting typical inner city black/brown division onto the national stage? If Hispanics are racist against Blacks, that's a big problem for us, because taking Nevada, New Mexico, Iowa, and Colorado requires strong Hispanic support.
We can worry no longer though, as recent polls show that Obama would win a re-vote in California. The Republican party's 2006 attempt to brand Hispanics as Untermenschen has aligned a solid majority of them with brand Democrat, and as soon as Obama becomes fixed in popular consciousness as the leader of the party, he'll lock up the Hispanic vote.
Wednesday, June 04, 2008
Recent VP History
The thing about the veepstakes to remember is that the act of choosing a running mate is so rare, and almost everyone who does it has never done it before, that there really aren't any hard guidelines, just a spotty history to abstract out theories from. But why the abstraction? There really haven't been many vice-presidential nominees. Why not just analyze every single post-war nominee and see who the modern equivalent would be? So here's a different look at who Barack Obama could choose as his running mate (note, some older picks are ignored because I have no idea what the thinking was):
1960: Lyndon Johnson – Hillary Clinton
Kennedy, against the wishes of his inner circle (RFK was pissed), offered his strongest primary opponent the spot on the ticket. And to everyone's shock and horror, he accepted. Johnson at least brought Texas along. Hillary only brings Bill.
1964: Hubert Humphrey – Janet Napolitano
In 1964 Johnson picked Humphrey, an ideological ally with two associations he didn't have personally (a northerner with heavy union ties) to run with him for balance. Two key constituency groups that Obama has had trouble with during the primary season are women and Hispanics, Napolitano, as the female governor of Arizona, has an attraction for both groups.
1968: Spiro Agnew – Wes Clark
Nixon let Rockefeller, his closest competitor in the 1968 race, pick his VP for him in exchange for his support. If Obama were to let the Clintons pick his running mate, they'd probably choose Clark, one of the few true Clinton loyalists who isn't just a campaign hack.
1972: Thomas Eagleton/Seargent Shriver – Jim McGreevy/Cindy Sheehan
Dan Quayle was not the worst VP choice in the twentieth century. If Obama wants to fuck up on a McGovernesque scale, he should pick a closet case, then fire him from the ticket and replace him with a rabid anti-war activist.
1976: Walter Mondale – Diane Feinstein
Another regional/union balancing ticket, very similar to 1964. If Obama passes over Napolitano but still feels a need to “unite the party” he might pick another gal from the Southwest. If not Feinstein then maybe Boxer, although I suspect a President Obama would much prefer to have Boxer in the Senate. It’s important to note that while appeasing Hillary Clinton is a mug’s game (she wants to be President, nothing else will appease fully) reaching out to her groups of voters could be a smart political ploy.
1976: Bob Dole – Joe Biden
Ticket balancing isn’t the only political concern. Nice guys like Barack Obama (and Gerald Ford) have some trouble mussing up their image by getting into political brawls. While Obama’s promise to not be a dick this year is nice, sometimes you need to rough up the other side. Joe Biden, who is naturally more of an asshole than Obama could ever pretend to be, would be a pit-bull for the Democrats this fall.
1980: George Bush – Joe Lieberman
Unlike the Democrats today, who have a conflict of personality, the Republicans of 1980 had conflicts of ideology. Bush ran far to Reagan’s left in the primaries, pro-choice and opposed to “supply-side” economics. The only parallel I can think of in the Democratic Party now is the last pro-war nominally Democratic Senator. But this scenario is absurd – there currently are no major ideological disagreements in the Democratic Party. Maybe if Obama wants to reach out to a “pre-Clintonian” Democratic party and appeal to Democratic Hawks skeptical of his appeal, he could bring Dick Gephardt out of storage or something.
1984: Geraldine Ferraro – Jack Murtha
Ferraro was a token appeal, a Hail Mary pass on Mondale’s behalf, actually chosen by the Speaker of the House. If Obama plans an ill-considered appeal to the hard-working white (RACIST) voters that snubbed him in the primaries, and he wants to let Nancy Pelosi pick it, she’d probably pick Jack Murtha.
1988: Dan Quayle – George McGovern
In 1988 the Republicans realized they had a problem with women. Having become the Pro-life party, opposed the Equal Rights Amendment, and following the 1984 nomination of a woman on the Democratic ticket, the Republicans feared a sharp movement of half the population towards the Democrats. In order to forestall this, Bush I did something very stupid and picked Dan Quayle, an ultra-conservative Senator, dumber than a bag of hammers, for his looks – with the tactical argument that women would vote for him because he was “cute”. Needless to say, this did not work, and might have even had the opposite effect for massively insulting women’s collective intelligence. Bush was heavily lobbied to drop Quayle in 1992, but refused, saying he thought of him like his own son. Eight years later we would learn just what he meant.
If Obama’s team wants to be as stupid as Bush’s in ’88, they need to analyze their electoral problems as being amongst older men with military backgrounds (McCain’s key demographic) and then put McGovern, an elderly WWII vet, on the ticket.
1988: Lloyd Bentsen – Bob Graham
Aping JFK, Massachusetts Governor Dukakis picked an older Texan to balance his ticket. And it would’ve been a good idea, if Bentsen had actually carried the south with him. Alas, it was not to be. Former Florida Governor and Senator Bob Graham is a different case, however, as he can probably carry his home state. And if Obama wins Florida, he’s the President. If Obama is worried about raw electability concerns, he could do worse than Graham.
1992: Al Gore – Claire McCaskill
After living through eight pretty good years of Clinton/Gore, we tend to forget what an odd choice it was for Clinton to choose Gore. Not that Gore’s an oddball, but most tickets strive for some sort of balance. Clinton, in effect, was doubling down on himself, a young moderate Southerner, in an attempt to win back the Democrat’s old power base. And, with the help of Ross Perot, they did it.
Just as Clinton pursued a Southern strategy with Gore, it appears that Obama is pursuing a Midwestern strategy. His first non-primary trip was to Iowa, and he clinched the nomination in Minnesota. He’ll be in St. Louis this week. If Kerry had won Iowa and Missouri last time, he’d be President now. Claire McCaskill is not really considered veep material because she’s inexperienced (on the federal level), a non-traditional candidate (female instead of black), and from a neighboring state to Illinois, so she provides no regional balance. These seem like bugs to most, but they might be features to Obama.
Also note that McCaskill delivered Missouri to Obama in the primaries, a feat that neither Ted Kennedy nor Tom Daschle managed with their states.
1996: Jack Kemp – Bill Bradley
Jack Kemp, former football star, conservative intellectual, and former candidate for President himself has a pretty eerie parallel with Bill Bradley, former basketball star, liberal intellectual, and Gore’s only challenger in 2000. This means, of course, that John McCain, the second coming of Bob Dole, should pick him.
2000: Dick Cheney – Tom Daschle
Dick Cheney was a pretty weird pick, Bush just picked the old Republican guy whose advice had let him win the nomination to help him run the country. If Obama has similar thoughts (picking a partner, rather than a warm body designed to win an election), Daschle has been his go-to guy since the race began.
2000: Joe Lieberman – Jim Webb
A short-sighted, stupid, superficial analysis of Gore’s campaign in 2000 would’ve indicated that his biggest problem was Bill Clinton’s sex life, so Gore picked the Senate Democrat who has most vehemently condemned Clinton. If he’d have picked Bob Graham, he’d have won Florida easily, and be ending his second term now.
A short-sighted, stupid, superficial analysis of Obama’s campaign right now would indicate that his biggest problem is white voters in Appalachia, aka “rednecks”. As Jim Webb is the only authentic Democratic redneck, he’s the obvious choice.
And just as the choice of Lieberman served as a reminder of Clinton’s indiscretions, the choice of Webb will serve as a constant reminder of Obama’s deficiencies.
2004: John Edwards – Bill Richardson
John Edwards pulled a neat trick in 2004 – he successfully ran for Vice President. Many people talk about running for VP, but as you can see from above, it rarely happens. Defeated major rivals are usually pissed about not getting the big prize and take veep grudgingly, and lesser rivals are usually too insignificant to merit the choice.
Edwards threaded this needle by not attacking anyone in 2004, in fact sucking up a lot in the debates, refusing to attack Kerry even when it was down to the two of them, and then dropping out after winning one Southern primary, before Kerry’s momentum effect showed that he could beat Edwards in the South, too.
Richardson followed the script pretty well, even dropping out just before the Nevada caucuses showed that he has no particular appeal to Hispanics. Now he can reasonably claim that he probably will appeal to Hispanics, and can swing a couple of crucial states Obama’s way.
Unfortunately for Richardson, Obama seems to be a bit smarter than Kerry. But he may pick him anyway, as he seems to like the fellow.
1960: Lyndon Johnson – Hillary Clinton
Kennedy, against the wishes of his inner circle (RFK was pissed), offered his strongest primary opponent the spot on the ticket. And to everyone's shock and horror, he accepted. Johnson at least brought Texas along. Hillary only brings Bill.
1964: Hubert Humphrey – Janet Napolitano
In 1964 Johnson picked Humphrey, an ideological ally with two associations he didn't have personally (a northerner with heavy union ties) to run with him for balance. Two key constituency groups that Obama has had trouble with during the primary season are women and Hispanics, Napolitano, as the female governor of Arizona, has an attraction for both groups.
1968: Spiro Agnew – Wes Clark
Nixon let Rockefeller, his closest competitor in the 1968 race, pick his VP for him in exchange for his support. If Obama were to let the Clintons pick his running mate, they'd probably choose Clark, one of the few true Clinton loyalists who isn't just a campaign hack.
1972: Thomas Eagleton/Seargent Shriver – Jim McGreevy/Cindy Sheehan
Dan Quayle was not the worst VP choice in the twentieth century. If Obama wants to fuck up on a McGovernesque scale, he should pick a closet case, then fire him from the ticket and replace him with a rabid anti-war activist.
1976: Walter Mondale – Diane Feinstein
Another regional/union balancing ticket, very similar to 1964. If Obama passes over Napolitano but still feels a need to “unite the party” he might pick another gal from the Southwest. If not Feinstein then maybe Boxer, although I suspect a President Obama would much prefer to have Boxer in the Senate. It’s important to note that while appeasing Hillary Clinton is a mug’s game (she wants to be President, nothing else will appease fully) reaching out to her groups of voters could be a smart political ploy.
1976: Bob Dole – Joe Biden
Ticket balancing isn’t the only political concern. Nice guys like Barack Obama (and Gerald Ford) have some trouble mussing up their image by getting into political brawls. While Obama’s promise to not be a dick this year is nice, sometimes you need to rough up the other side. Joe Biden, who is naturally more of an asshole than Obama could ever pretend to be, would be a pit-bull for the Democrats this fall.
1980: George Bush – Joe Lieberman
Unlike the Democrats today, who have a conflict of personality, the Republicans of 1980 had conflicts of ideology. Bush ran far to Reagan’s left in the primaries, pro-choice and opposed to “supply-side” economics. The only parallel I can think of in the Democratic Party now is the last pro-war nominally Democratic Senator. But this scenario is absurd – there currently are no major ideological disagreements in the Democratic Party. Maybe if Obama wants to reach out to a “pre-Clintonian” Democratic party and appeal to Democratic Hawks skeptical of his appeal, he could bring Dick Gephardt out of storage or something.
1984: Geraldine Ferraro – Jack Murtha
Ferraro was a token appeal, a Hail Mary pass on Mondale’s behalf, actually chosen by the Speaker of the House. If Obama plans an ill-considered appeal to the hard-working white (RACIST) voters that snubbed him in the primaries, and he wants to let Nancy Pelosi pick it, she’d probably pick Jack Murtha.
1988: Dan Quayle – George McGovern
In 1988 the Republicans realized they had a problem with women. Having become the Pro-life party, opposed the Equal Rights Amendment, and following the 1984 nomination of a woman on the Democratic ticket, the Republicans feared a sharp movement of half the population towards the Democrats. In order to forestall this, Bush I did something very stupid and picked Dan Quayle, an ultra-conservative Senator, dumber than a bag of hammers, for his looks – with the tactical argument that women would vote for him because he was “cute”. Needless to say, this did not work, and might have even had the opposite effect for massively insulting women’s collective intelligence. Bush was heavily lobbied to drop Quayle in 1992, but refused, saying he thought of him like his own son. Eight years later we would learn just what he meant.
If Obama’s team wants to be as stupid as Bush’s in ’88, they need to analyze their electoral problems as being amongst older men with military backgrounds (McCain’s key demographic) and then put McGovern, an elderly WWII vet, on the ticket.
1988: Lloyd Bentsen – Bob Graham
Aping JFK, Massachusetts Governor Dukakis picked an older Texan to balance his ticket. And it would’ve been a good idea, if Bentsen had actually carried the south with him. Alas, it was not to be. Former Florida Governor and Senator Bob Graham is a different case, however, as he can probably carry his home state. And if Obama wins Florida, he’s the President. If Obama is worried about raw electability concerns, he could do worse than Graham.
1992: Al Gore – Claire McCaskill
After living through eight pretty good years of Clinton/Gore, we tend to forget what an odd choice it was for Clinton to choose Gore. Not that Gore’s an oddball, but most tickets strive for some sort of balance. Clinton, in effect, was doubling down on himself, a young moderate Southerner, in an attempt to win back the Democrat’s old power base. And, with the help of Ross Perot, they did it.
Just as Clinton pursued a Southern strategy with Gore, it appears that Obama is pursuing a Midwestern strategy. His first non-primary trip was to Iowa, and he clinched the nomination in Minnesota. He’ll be in St. Louis this week. If Kerry had won Iowa and Missouri last time, he’d be President now. Claire McCaskill is not really considered veep material because she’s inexperienced (on the federal level), a non-traditional candidate (female instead of black), and from a neighboring state to Illinois, so she provides no regional balance. These seem like bugs to most, but they might be features to Obama.
Also note that McCaskill delivered Missouri to Obama in the primaries, a feat that neither Ted Kennedy nor Tom Daschle managed with their states.
1996: Jack Kemp – Bill Bradley
Jack Kemp, former football star, conservative intellectual, and former candidate for President himself has a pretty eerie parallel with Bill Bradley, former basketball star, liberal intellectual, and Gore’s only challenger in 2000. This means, of course, that John McCain, the second coming of Bob Dole, should pick him.
2000: Dick Cheney – Tom Daschle
Dick Cheney was a pretty weird pick, Bush just picked the old Republican guy whose advice had let him win the nomination to help him run the country. If Obama has similar thoughts (picking a partner, rather than a warm body designed to win an election), Daschle has been his go-to guy since the race began.
2000: Joe Lieberman – Jim Webb
A short-sighted, stupid, superficial analysis of Gore’s campaign in 2000 would’ve indicated that his biggest problem was Bill Clinton’s sex life, so Gore picked the Senate Democrat who has most vehemently condemned Clinton. If he’d have picked Bob Graham, he’d have won Florida easily, and be ending his second term now.
A short-sighted, stupid, superficial analysis of Obama’s campaign right now would indicate that his biggest problem is white voters in Appalachia, aka “rednecks”. As Jim Webb is the only authentic Democratic redneck, he’s the obvious choice.
And just as the choice of Lieberman served as a reminder of Clinton’s indiscretions, the choice of Webb will serve as a constant reminder of Obama’s deficiencies.
2004: John Edwards – Bill Richardson
John Edwards pulled a neat trick in 2004 – he successfully ran for Vice President. Many people talk about running for VP, but as you can see from above, it rarely happens. Defeated major rivals are usually pissed about not getting the big prize and take veep grudgingly, and lesser rivals are usually too insignificant to merit the choice.
Edwards threaded this needle by not attacking anyone in 2004, in fact sucking up a lot in the debates, refusing to attack Kerry even when it was down to the two of them, and then dropping out after winning one Southern primary, before Kerry’s momentum effect showed that he could beat Edwards in the South, too.
Richardson followed the script pretty well, even dropping out just before the Nevada caucuses showed that he has no particular appeal to Hispanics. Now he can reasonably claim that he probably will appeal to Hispanics, and can swing a couple of crucial states Obama’s way.
Unfortunately for Richardson, Obama seems to be a bit smarter than Kerry. But he may pick him anyway, as he seems to like the fellow.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
