I was wrong. Like most of the world I was completely blown away by Clinton's "out of no where" victory." Now that I have had a few hours of sleep and enough time to remove a very large quantity of egg from my face, a few thoughts about amateur punditry, advocacy, and about the race from here.
What a night!????! I can't remember a time when so many polls were so wrong. This was not like 2ooo and 2oo4 where it looked like Kerry and Gore were going to win very narrow victories and ended up loosing even more narrowly. This was a complete stunner, I don't think anybody saw this coming. Just off the top of my head, I think two things probably happened:
1) I think some of the indies who would have voted for Obama, thought he was a sure winner and decided to vote strategically for McCain.
2) I think HRC's show of emotion and passion had a huge impact on the women's vote. Identity politics are very powerful. People of any group, particularly a group that has been subjected to a long history of oppression, don't like seeing one of their own get kicked around. In that one moment, Hillary addressed her biggest problem as a candidate, her lack of authenticity. She came across as very human, someone both passionate and vulnerable. I suspect that a lot of women said, "I don't want to see her humiliated, so I will vote for HRC."
I don't in any way want to criticize the people (primarily women) who may have made this decision. I think it is natural. You see one of your own in trouble and you try to do what you can to help. I suspect that most of these women were either on the fence already or were low information voters who relate more to personality than to policy.
My analysis is based entirely on conjecture; it may be total bull. I look forward to hearing others thoughts.
Regardless of why the lightening struck, it did strike, and the question is where does this leave us?
More below the fold.
I suspect that we are in for a dog fight.
Both Clinton and Obama have built very powerful campaigns with highly competent people. They have both shown that they can raise a ton of money. They both have crafted strong messages that have both rational and emotional power. They both represent historic firsts that have great symbolic and identity power.
Each has advantages. Clinton's "identity base" among women is much larger than Obama's base among AAs. Because women are a majority within the Dem party, even a small gender gap of a few percentage points translates into a large number of votes. It remains to be seen how AA voters will respond to Obama's candidacy. Obama needs to win substantial majorities. We will see.
Clinton also has a huge advantage in terms of connections and institutional support. She and BC have deep roots in the Dem base throughout the country. She is the candidate of the Dem establishment. Having won NH she has slowed the rush of defections among the Dem establishment. If the nomination comes down to a grind-it-out delegate count, Clinton has the inside track.
On the other hand, IMHO, Obama has an advantage when it comes to message. This has become an election primarily about change. Obama both symbolically and substantively better represents change. Clinton is a restoration candidate in a change election. She is working hard to find a way to argue that she is the candidate who can best deliver change, but this message is inherently complicated and internally inconsistent.
In many ways, I think it comes down to a race about doubts. Clinton will try to raise doubts about whether or not Obama can keep the country safe and whether he can deliver the change he promises. At the same time, she must overcome the voter's doubts about her "authenticity, like-ability, and trustworthiness." Obama has to overcome doubts about his readiness, his grasp of policy, and his ability to stand up to the Republicans.
Obama needs to win Nevada, if he can, I think it will help him overcome the doubts of AA voters and he will steamroll Clinton in SC. If he can regain his Iowa momentum, NH will look like an aberration. Obama needs momentum to overcome Clinton's name familiarity and institutional advantages on Feb 5th.
Florida is a wild card. Can Clinton afford to violate her promise not to campaign there? If she does, can Obama afford to stay out? I don't know.
I see California as huge. I general, as an Oregonian, I think the west coast will be very receptive to Obama's message and receptive to the symbolic image of a multi-cultural President.
It is going to be an interesting month. If I were betting, I would give a slight edge to Clinton, but I won't be surprised to see it go either way.
On a personal note, again, I was wrong. I thought Obama would get a big bounce out of Iowa and that he would build so much momentum that HRC could not stop him. The women of NH had other ideas. Pride goes before the fall. I think many in the JE and HRC camps have badly underestimated Obama and almost willfully misconstrued his candidacy. I will try to be a bit more humble in my comments, and I hope that others will join me in this effort.
I have strong reasons for supporting Obama, based on personal experience, ideology, and my perception of how to build the Democratic party and achieve change. I realize that others have different ideas and experiences and are just as passionate in their opinions as am I.
I hope to apply a little of the wisdom that my grandmother taught me, "always treat others with the respect that you wish to recieve." A generous application of the Golden Rule would really improve the atmosphers around here, and would in the long run help our common cause. On to victory in November!
|
|
|
Permalink :: 50 Comments :: Post a Comment
|
In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.
If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.
