Why Obama Needs Nevada
Barack Obama needs Nevada more than Hillary Clinton does.
This is not to say that Saturday’s caucuses are do-or-die test for Obama. Even in defeat in Nevada, Obama would be in a strong position to win in South Carolina, the final official Democratic test before February 5. In other words, Obama would still be able to enter “Super-Duper Tuesday” with wins in two of the first four contests, making him plenty viable in the nearly two dozen states that will vote that day, and the likely winner in at least a handful of them.
But that might not be good enough. It’s important to keep in mind that Obama is the insurgent candidate in the Democratic race; vastly better funded than any previous insurgent and a genuine celebrity to boot, but the insurgent nonetheless. Denying the nomination to Hillary Clinton will require more than trading primary and caucus wins through the winter and early spring.
In Democratic politics, a tie goes to the establishment favorite, who can count on hundreds of extra votes at the party’s convention, courtesy of the elected officials and party leaders who are automatically awarded delegate choice and who are magnetically attracted to the safe, “inevitable” candidate. Not surprisingly, early surveys of these “super delegates” from the Associated Press finds them lopsidedly favoring Hillary.
To win, then, Obama must turn the prevailing narrative of the Democratic race on its head. He must deal Clinton an unrelenting series of defeats in the early primaries, generating enough momentum for himself to build clear leads in national and key state polls.
History is clear: When one candidate wins successive “major tests,” a giant chunk of the party’s rank-and-file falls into line. States in which that candidate previously trailed badly become dead even. And in states that were already even, that candidate becomes the clear favorite. John Kerry and Al Gore witnessed this phenomenon after each pulling off the Iowa-New Hampshire one-two punch. And Bill Clinton’s back-to-back big days on “Junior Tuesday” and Super Tuesday in 1992 made him the runaway favorite for the nomination.
Obama had a chance to join their ranks two weeks ago in New Hampshire, only to let it slip through his fingers. How close he came is instructive: Throughout 2007, he trailed Clinton by about 20 points in national polls, the result of the masses of rank-and-file voters who accepted Hillary’s campaign as little more than a coronation. This is also why she has consistently led by similar margins in the major states—like California—that will vote later in the process. But one upset win in Iowa, coupled with Hillary’s third place showing, tightened those numbers dramatically. And one more, in New Hampshire, would have made him the odds-on favorite—and the establishment types who have favored Hillary because she is supposed to win would have begun defecting, overtly or subtly.
But by winning New Hampshire, Hillary stopped the bleeding and provided reassurance both to the establishment and to the fickle masses of the Democratic electorate who like nothing better than falling in line behind whoever looks most like a front-runner.
Which brings us back to Nevada. There are only two contests between now and February 5. Obama is already being penciled in as the South Carolina winner, so he won’t get a major boost out of a win there. But a victory in Nevada, which the media is treating as an even match-up, would be a different story. Clinton led in the state by large margins until recently and has contested the caucuses vigorously.
Even Nevada and South Carolina wins wouldn’t put Hillary on the ropes the way Iowa did. It will take more than one surprise loss for the establishment (and the media) to write her off now. But it’s Obama’s best—and only chance—of turning February 5 into something other than a fatal draw.
Obama weakness is not based on if he wins one state or another.
Jesse Jackson won 12 primaries and caucuses and had actual record of achievement, still he could not win the nomination.
Obama's problems are:
1. Very thin to no achievements.
2. All words no action
3. "Speaks" against Iraq war, votes for "funding" the war
4. "Speaks" against Iran resolution, votes "absent"
5. "Speaks" about not playing race card, but "plays" it in South Carolina
6. "Speaks" about bringing people together, ends up "standing" for nothing
7. Only good thing about him, great admirer of "Ronald Regan", but does not let Democrat union know about it until late in the game.
This is presidential election, not preacher.
This race is turning into a racial divide, and what a lot of people are forgetting is that white working class people and hispanics make up the majority of the democratic party. As can be seen by the exit polls in Michigan and the polls in Nevada and South Carolina, whites are overwhelmingly voting for Hillary Clinton. Hispanics are also favoring Clinton to a lesser degree. An Obama win in South Carolina seems inevitable, but unfortunately for his campaign, 50% of the South Carolina democratic electorate is black, and this certainly does not hold up in key states like New York, California, and Texas. Hillary Clinton will be the nominee in 2008 and will defeat the Republicans. If he's still a rockstar in 8 years, Obama 2016 may be a much more realistic goal when he would go uncontested by a Clinton powerhouse.
Obama's campaign is a bunch of promises that have no research or backing behind them. He'd certainly beat the Republicans, but he might also give them a victory in 2012 because we'll have another President who can't deliver on his lofty ideals. I'm all for beating the Rudy McRomney's of the world, but I want to look beyond the election and towards the presidency itself.
The issue is whether America has become so close to Pakistan, where Bhutto's 19 year old became the leader of the Opposition party, that we would allow another Clinton to occupy the White House after 8 years of Bush making it a Bush, Clinton, Clinton, Bush, Bush, Clinton?
The issue is whether America has become so close to Pakistan, where Bhutto's 19 year old became the leader of the Opposition party, that we would allow another Clinton to occupy the White House after 8 years of Bush making it a Bush, Clinton, Clinton, Bush, Bush, Clinton?
I think we are all forgetting something. Remember Hillary was suppose to be the nominee? She was unbeatable just about a month ago? Well, all of the has changed and it'll continue to change. American people now see there are two other serious candidates in the race and they are paying attention to that. I strongly believe in the coming weeks Obama will gain support irregardless of what happens in NV.
Obama doesn't support casino gambling like Hillary does. Seriously, how can he win Nevada being against gambling? Folks, this game is OVER.
You say Obama is a leader, yeah of the Farrakhan supporters.
People keep bringing up Lewinski - What about Jeremiah Wright who is Obama's closest confidant and advisor PLUS
an ardent Louis Farrakhan supporter?
Sorry folks that won't cut it in America.
This story has legs and it is true. It has been discussed on Tucker Carlson's show 2 nights in a row plus Hannity and Colmes show 2 nights in a row.
There are numerous articles from renowned reporters all over the internet now too, another one today, at least one, probably more. Obama or no one else who supports Farrakhan and the likes of him will ever be president of our United States. Talk about a Civil War, White Conservatives will not allow this and I am a White Liberal and I and others who share my views won't either.
"YOU SAY OBAMA IS TRUSTWORTHy" - What a farce - You say Obama is a leader, yeah of the Farrakhan supporters.
People keep bringing up Lewinski - What about Jeremiah Wright who is Obama's closest confidant and advisor PLUS
an ardent Louis Farrakhan supporter?
Sorry folks that won't cut it in America.
This story has legs and it is true. It has been discussed on Tucker Carlson's show 2 nights in a row plus Hannity and Colmes show 2 nights in a row.
There are numerous articles from renowned reporters all over the internet now too, another one today, at least one, probably more. Obama or no one else who supports Farrakhan and the likes of him will ever be president of our United States. Talk about a Civil War, White Conservatives will not allow this and I am a White Liberal and I and others who share my views won't either.
I was under the impression that there was three (3) people running. Did someone forget Edwards? What would happen if he won NV? Of course the MSM won't carry much news about his campaign. Ever wonder why MSM is pushing Clinton and Obama? Something to think about, isn't it.
McCain, not Obama, is a media creation. I agree Obama needs experience and this is Hillary's turn. But, Obama is fine. Look at McCain! He was 4th in Iowa, 1st in New Hampshire, lost in Michigan, and the media is creating anice picture of him. Compare this to Hillary or Obama. Somebody better get prepared to show who this straighshooter is. So called straight talk Mccain was part of Keating 5. Anyone remember? He voted against Bush tax cuts and now wants to make it permanent. Straight talk also called Chelsea Clinton a "dog" in late 1990s. And, hey, this is a "Iraq war" guy. He calls this a success. let us say, a war fought for well over 5 years (more than Word War), started on a wrong basis, screwing it up, and then trying mop it up with "surge' is not exactly a success story. McCain was behind Bush.
I agree with Nate - as a life-long democratic voter, I never thought I'd find myself in this position: having to stay home in November if there's another Clinton (which one - Bill keeps forgetting to say "she", or even "we", instead of "I"... Or was the "I have nothing to do with this law suit" statement another Clinton parsing, half-truth?! See what we would be getting back to?! ) on the ticket. But the supreme court is at stake! One more justice, and we don't even need to wait for the decision in a large number of cases - like in the former Sovjet Union, that will be a mere formality. As a very active member in my local precinct, I was startled to find that about a third of the most active members feel the same way about the Clintons. And if the party loses yellow dogs like this, Ginrich and Rove smile all the way to the WH.
Maybe Laura Bush should also be running for President with her first lady experience. Law review experience alone does not, of course, qualify you to fry hamburgers. Here we are talking also legislative experience in Illinois, the US Senate and general life experience growing up as nobody and having to be street smart enough to go to Columbia and Harvard.
Maybe Laura Bush should also be running for President with her first lady experience. Law review experience alone does not, of course, qualify you to fry hamburgers. Here we are talking also legislative experience in Illinois, the US Senate and general life experience growing up as nobody and having to be street smart enough to go to Columbia and Harvard
after claiming that obama would allow nuclear waste to be dumped in nevada, clinton is surprised by a rebuke from the guy who actually fought against nuclear waste in nevada. i forget the guy's name, but he called clinton's attacks very unfair.
does not that say much about her character? if there is someone who gest a free past from the press is the clintons. after all, no journalist dares to revive their past without awakening the wrath of bill clinton.
it is ironic that they are calling obama a junior senator as way of undermining him. but the real questions are these:
why would an established senator with a former popular president by her side resort to negativity as a way of gaining votes against a junior senator? why would a junior senator manage to register so many first-time voters in primaries whereas the established candidate had to rely on her core support to snatch a narrow win?
why would a 20-point lead one month ago in nevada be reduced to a statistical tie?
when we look at reality for what it really is, hillary is the one struggling here. she is not the comeback kid, the real comeback kid here is obama; after all, clinton was the inevitable nominee just a few months ago. so, obama is the real comeback kid here both figuratvely and literally.
"Reverse Psychology is Karl Rove's republican strategy in 2008".
Karl Rove and Newt Gingrich are two of the most formidable republican strategists in recent history. In fact, the former is solely responsible for the rise of Bush Jr. from governor of Texas to two-term president of the United States while the latter had devised a conservative strategy that led to republican domination of congress for more than a decade.
These two strategists are now using reverse psychology as a means of winning the elections for republicans in 2008. How are they doing that? Both Karl Rove and Newt Gingrich know something crucial about Hillary that their democratic counterparts have failed to emphasize. What Karl and newt know is that Hillary is no Bill Clinton--- that she fares very poorly with independent voters as demonstrated by both the analyzed results of Iowa and New Hampshire. What Karl and Newt are banking on is the following fact:
The next president of the United States will be determined in the end by independent and first-time voters; and giving the negative clout now hanging on the republican party, their best chance of retaining the white house is to have Hillary face McCain in the general elections. Why? it is because McCain does much better than Hillary with independent voters. in fact, recognizing his appeal to independent voters, particularly after they have rescued his candidacy in New Hampshire, McCain gratefully refers to independents as the "fastest growing third party in America".
In addition, both Newt and Karl know in their guts that their biggest fear is an Obama nomination. Why? It is because Obama, not only does he fare very well with independent voters as demonstrated by the results of Iowa and New Hampshire, he also brings in first-time voters in significant numbers. In fact, consistently against all the major republican contenders in hypothetical match-ups, Obama comes on top while Hillary loses most if not all; and that is no accident, because Obama's support among independents is more than twice that of Hillary.
The reverse psychology is already at work; in fact, many democrats have already fallen for it; for an increasing number of democrats are now thinking that it is a republican conspiracy to publicly favor Obama so as to beat him in the general elections. According to that argument, many republicans are supposedly funding the Obama campaigns as a means of supposedly subverting the democratic choice. In fact, while the hypothesis is true (it is true that republican pundits are publicly cheering for Obama) the conclusion deduced by these democrats is itself false (because it is not Obama that the republican strategists really want, but Hillary.) how does the strategy work? The strategy of reverse psychology in this case takes advantage of the nascent propensity of democrats, after the dramatic finish of the 2000 presidential elections, to claim republican conspiracy whether imagined or real. So just as in all propensities, this particular propensity can be taken advantage of. This is exactly what Karl Rove and Newt Gingrich are intending to do here. They know that by publicly cheering for Obama while apparently dogging Hillary, there will be rumors of a republican conspiracy supposedly involving the nomination of Obama. In reaction, Karl and Newt must have calculated that democrats would choose, as a counter-move, the more established candidate in the person of Hillary Clinton-- the candidate that fares very poorly with independents who, by the reverse psychology strategy, is the candidate that they really hope to face in the general elections. That situation would in the end give republicans their greatest chance of retaining the white house.
After all, Hillary is the only major democratic candidate that has consistently lost to the top republican contenders in most of the hypothetical match-ups; and again, that is no accident because Hillary’s support among independents is very weak.
It remains to be seen if American voters would fall for another trick from Karl Rove's magic hat; After all, older women, and blue-collar moms who represent Hillary’s core democratic support would not be sufficient to elect her first female president of the United States.
Hillary is GOP's worst nightmare.
Disagree?
Then why is Karl Rove writing a Newsweek column offering Obama free advice how to beat her?
Republicans would destroy ultra-liberal Obama along the lines of Reagan versus Mondale.
But they are scared to death of Hillary Clinton. She's got Big Mo, Big Bill, and they can't play the national security card against her.
Get used to it GOP--8 years is a LONG time!
Hillary Clinton is a 16-year old Ford Taurus station
wagon sitting in the driveway. Everybody knows it'll
run, and take them to the store, but nobody's really
all that excited about taking a trip in it.
Barack Obama is a brand new Corvette sitting next to it.
Nobody even notices the Taurus. And everybody can't
wait to jump in the 'Vette and zoom off to new, untraveled
and exciting places.
Hillary Clinton is a 16-year old Ford Taurus station
wagon sitting in the driveway. Everybody knows it'll
run, and take them to the store, but nobody's really
all that excited about taking a trip in it.
Barack Obama is a brand new Corvette sitting next to it.
Nobody even notices the Taurus. And everybody can't
wait to jump in the 'Vette and zoom off to new, untraveled
and exciting places.
do you you know that illinois is the fifth richest state in the union with important infrastructures? therefore an intrinsic state of the union which reflects the union in all its forms! if illinois were a country, it would be the 25th largest economy in the world!! so underming policy works in illinois as if it were some insignificant state is way off mark!!!
when hillary was handed her seat in new york, she had not lived in new york, and known practically nothing about new york issues and life, but she was elected anyway. now, a man, after leaving left IVY LEAGUE where he was manager editor of the harvard law review, joined a grassroots law frim and defended poor people; but that man strangely is tought to have no substance!! but one that left IVY LEAGUE to join a prestigious law firm to defend wealthy clients has a lot substance! what kind of non-sense is that? one became senator after being a first lady whereas the other was a legislator for four years, and taught constitutional law, and built leadership programs, and fought for organized labor to save american jobs; but at the end, the former is strangely thought to have more experience than the latter. the only experience that hillary has more than obama is in years lived on this earth. has hillary ever fought for organized labor to save american jobs that by the way are being outsourced by the same big corparations that she defended in the prestigious law firm that she joined right after IVY LEAGUE? and we are talking about substance? obama has a legitimate experience that can speak to the plight of american jobs. both edwards and clinton defended big companies that outsourced american jobs, but obama fought for organized labor. for god's sake, if there is a fairy tale here, it is hillary's works for the masses!!!!
as someone has already mentioned, the only fairy tale here is the so-called more-experienced candidate.
in undermining obama, geraldine ferraro claimed in the new york times that "obama's core support is the african-american community, and that he has nothing to lose from distorting clinton's comments". i do not remember iowa and new hampshire having substantial african-american populations. on what logical basis is she saying that, i do not know!!!
Finally, a candidate that can defeat the republican establishment.
As you can see from the comments above the republicans are VERY scared of Obama, and just wish he would go away so that they can defeat Hillary. Well he IS NOT going away! He has the Ca$h and resources to take this to the convention and hopefully the other Dems will wise up and realize that Hillary has no shot against the GOP and will mobilize their base and have them turn out against her.
Go Obama!
A very perceptive article, Steve. Obama is the exciting candidate, but Clinton still has much of the "power of inertia" in her favour. From a personal point of view, this is hugely disappointing, because I don't think Hillary can win the general, especially if McCain or Giuliani is the Republican nominee. Many Democratic-leaning Independents simply wouldn't countenance voting for Hillary in a general election: they'll either stay home on election day or vote for the Republican. Why? Because she is so tied up with the baggage of the past, the whole scandal-rocked and divisive Bill Clinton presidency (between Gennifer Flowers, Paula Jones, Whitewater, Monica Lewinsky and impeachment). And while you shouldn't judge Hillary by her husband's (mis)behaviour, it was Hillary's failures on health care reform that gave Republicans control of Congress and gave Newt Gingrich to the world. Yes, Obama has none of that experience, but in the circumstances this is an advantage. The Clinton experience is not one you'd like to have.
why does no one see that hillary clinton is a power-hungry, slick, politician. experience? first lady of arkansas, first lady of america, 7 years in the senate? since when did being a politician's spouse transpose into experience? and does anyone REALLY beleieve her when she speaks?
Obama is trustworthy. Obama is change. Obama is realistic.
What about Florida? I know there aren't supposed to be delegates awarded but a Florida win before Super Tuesday should still be a shot in the arm for a candidate.
I agree whole heartedly with the 1st post.
Obama needs to wait his turn and get some much needed experience 1st.
Clinton/Obama 08'
Obama/significant other 2016'
Obama is clearly the superior candidate--the better speaker, politician, human being, intellect, sense of humor--but Hillary represents the establishment. Hillary will win, but at the convention in Denver it will dawn on the Dems that they have made the wrong choice.
Clinton should be the favourite to win Nevada. She had a 20-point margin in December and leads by about 5 now. So Obama is catching up, but probably has enough time to win.
Obama is also cathing up in California; Clinton´s lead is shrinking fast, acording to a Rasmussen poll yesterday (38-33 to Clinton).
The same surge for Obama also happened in Iowa and New Hampshire. In December, for example, Obama was far behind in New Hampshire but lost with less than 3 points.
My explanation for why Obama is surging is that he inspires confidence. The more people see him, understands his character and learn about his political proposals, the more they like him and see him as the best leader.
Clinton is the favourite to win Nevada. She had a 20-point margin in December and leads by about 5 now. So Obama is catching up, but probably has not enough time to win.
Obama is also cathing up in California; Clinton´s lead is shrinking fast, acording to a Rasmussen poll yesterday (now 38-33 to Clinton).
The same surge for Obama also happened in Iowa and New Hampshire. In December, for example, Obama was far behind in New Hampshire but lost with less than 3 points.
My explanation for why Obama is surging is that he inspires confidence. The more people see him, understands his character and learn about his political proposals, the more they like him and see him as the best leader.
Obama is a media creation with little to no national or internaional political or administrative experience. He has never worked on any major national or world problem,treaty, legislation or conflict; he has never run a business or built up anything in the private or public sector; he has a very short tenure in the Senate with no notable achievements; he is arrogant to suggest that only he has the ability to attract the best minds/talent to run the nation (he is 42 years old and is hardly known in the world). His policy perscriptions are a joke ("Ï will pullout the troops in Iraq promptly").
The fact that he is even in this race says a lot of negative things about the shallowness of the American voting public, the media and our "chattering classes". I have yet ot see one journalist challenge Obama on any substantive point. Obama would not win the general election simply becuase he has never been tested on the national stage. The growing business wing of the Democratic party (high tech, Wall Street), the Jewish community, and rational independents who understand the importance of foreign policy and crisis management will not vote for him in the numbers needed to win the general election. McCain would easily beat Obama--he is an adult.
I am a lifeong Democrat, and I believe this year is the party's best chance to win. Obama would lose in a serious landslide.
Our current George Bush had the same shortcomings as Obama-- and the media never challenged Bush on his shortcomings, and he will likely go down in history as one of the wrost US presidents, who has done an immense amount of damage to US prestige and standing in the world. OUt nation has too many serious problems to gamble on this
Those Democrats who hope for Hillary as the candidate are living in a bubble. Right now she is running against a candidate, Obama, who's greatest political flaw is that he's too nice. He allows repeated conscious distortions of what he says and refuses to go after Bill and Hillary on their achilles heel---namely their past and continued history of dishonesty and aversion for slime politics.
Republicans won't be so nice.
They and their surrogates will be relentless in repeating the Clinton's history of half-truths. You will hear and see that clip of Bill chastising the world that, "...I never had sex with that womman..." and "...it depends on what your definition of is, is.." over and over. You think the Swift Boat ads were annoying...
And as much as those Democrats will like to think it's not fair, it will remind the American people why we are all tired of the crap from the past 16 years and they will vote for a new direction. Basically, anything but that again.
And by the way, I'm a lifelong Democrat, who voted for Bill Clinton both times. So if I feel that way, imagine how all those independants and "Reagan Democrats" and left-leaning Republicans feel. WAKE-UP!!