On Obama’s Super Tuesday Win (and other reflections on the presidential race)
I spent much of yesterday thinking about Super Tuesday and voraciously reading whatever I could get my hands on (rather, whatever I could click on). I stand by my initial view, expressed in the early-morning hours after California was called, that Obama won. By that, I don’t just mean he won more states (which he did) and delegates (which he also did) but that he won by blocking Clinton’s path to victory and by putting himself in a position to win the nomination, as well as by gaining both credibility and momentum by winning impressively all over the country and by drawing even, roughly speaking, with his opponent, recently the evident frontrunner.
Super Tuesday was supposed to be Clinton’s day, the “national” primary day that would propel her to the nomination. Obama was expected to do well in the early states, in Iowa and South Carolina, and he won both, but Clinton regained her footing in New Hampshire and seemed to have everything in place to meet early expectations, namely, expectations of victory. But now Obama is back, raising extraordinary amounts of money and looking good heading into the next set of primaries and caucuses. If he wins all or most of those votes — Louisiana, Washington, and Nebraska on Saturday; Maine on Sunday; Maryland and Virginia next Tuesday; Wisconsin and Hawaii the following Tuesday — he could pull well ahead of Clinton going into the big March 4 votes in Ohio and Texas. Clinton looks good in those two states, but the hybrid system in Texas may benefit Obama and, with Obama having a lot of time to campaign personally in Ohio — and his numbers tend to go up when he campaigns personally anywhere — he could pull that one out, especially if he’s riding the momentum of other victories.
This is not to say the race is over. No, this just seems to be the best-case scenario for Obama going forward, one that would give him a significant delegate lead, and perhaps even the perception of virtual invincibility, after March 4. What is amazing about Obama’s solid performance yesterday — and this is why I think he won in the larger scheme of things — is that he was able to put himself in this position, a position that seemed remote at best just last week. Of course, Clinton could still pull off victories over the next few weeks, surprising the media and slowing (if not reversing) Obama’s momentum, and could win both Ohio and Texas, and then, after that, other big states like Pennsylvania. And, of course, there may be (and are likely to be) some surprises along the way. And it could still be a long, tight race.
Still, there is cause for concern on Clinton’s part, and, in her Tuesday night speech, her appeal to progressives, reiteration of the bogus “experience” argument, and general scrappiness seemed to reflect such concern, particularly in comparison with Obama’s genuinely presidential address. (And then there’s Clinton’s huge self-loan, an indication that she’s running well behind Obama financially and is desperately gearing up for the tough fight ahead.)
**********
On the other side, it looks like the Republicans will have as their nominee a man who isn’t liked by some of the party’s core constituencies, who may even have a majority of the party faithful against him. Yes, it will be McCain, it seems, and that will be that. Huckabee can only win narrowly in southern states and Romney, who not too long ago looked like a sure thing, looks more and more loserish to me, a man who can win his home states and those states where he spends wildly but nowhere else. And so the rifts on the right and within the GOP will deepen, and conservatives will have to decide whether they want to swallow their ideological pride (and their purificationist longings) and back McCain or rebel against their party (thereby ensuring McCain’s loss in the general election, perhaps in anticipation of a post-election coup to recapture the party).
Here’s a good Super Tuesday summary from the otherwise wrong-headed Mark Steyn: “The real story of the night, when you look at their rallies and their turn-out numbers, is that the Dems have two strong candidates either of whom could lead a united party to victory. Forget the gaseous platitudes: in Dem terms, their choice on Super Duper Tuesday was deciding which candidate was Super Duper and which was merely Super. Over on the GOP side, it was a choice between Weak & Divisive or Weaker & Unacceptable. Doesn’t bode well for November.”
Nope, doesn’t bode well at all. At least not for Republicans.
15 Responses to “On Obama’s Super Tuesday Win (and other reflections on the presidential race)”
If the post above this is true, with Mitt Romney bowing out, one can only hope that Hillary will do so if she loses a bit more the next few weeks. I think it wd change alot of minds if she finally put the nation ahead of her own ego (not that I'm counting on it).
The most impressive thing about Obama is that he is the only candidate with a genuinely growing base of support. Hill lent herself $5 mill and the Obamaniacs raised $6 mill in a few days to counter her.
In short, Hill is not the candidate of the 'people', but of the establishment, and Obama and Mac will be a sure sign of that on both sides, with a VERY clear and divergent choice, one which Hill and Mac cannot produce.
Obama is getting into phenomenom territory of late. I just hope he can sustain the “surge” he's experienced.
Seems like an accurate summation of how I feel as well. The key will be Obama performing well in those races leading up to Penn/Ohio/TX. If he does well, then I can't see Clinton overcoming the momentum he takes into those states. If he underperforms in the run-up however, Clinton is much more likely to pull it off, it seems to me.
As for Hawaii, in some ways it's hard to predict how they will behave. As the 38th or 39th state to vote, and a small one, I don't think we are used to anyone caring and so the institutions for running the vote are probably not strongly developed. On the Clinton side, Hawaiians are pretty traditionalist and party supporters. We've kept both our Senators in office for literally decades. But you'd have to think Obama would take the state because he lived here for a few years, attending Punahou School, the state's premier private school. The chowder shop I frequent has had a poster of Obama on the window, advertising that he ate there in the 70s, for months. And Hawaiians like nothing more than someone with a Hawaii connection. They always vote local.
Actually, Michael, Barack Obama will make a good VP for Hillary Clinton. Otherwise, the Democratic Party will lose an unbelievable number of votes, volunteers and donations and John McCain will be our next President.
Cosmo, she is the party of the people just not your people. Look I don't like her either but she is getting support from the Democrats. She is leading with elderly, Latinos and the working class. That hardly is pure establishment. And today I saw that she actually won slightly more votes than Obama if you looked at Super Tuesday as a national popular vote.
[...] The Moderate Voice – Domestic and international news analysis, irreverent comments, original reporti… wrote an interesting post today on On Obamaâ??s Super Tuesday Win (and other reflections on the presidential race)Here’s a quick excerpt I spent much of yesterday thinking about Super Tuesday and voraciously reading whatever I could get my hands on (rather, whatever I could click on). I stand by my initial view, expressed in the early-morning hours after California was called, that Obama won. By that, I don’t just mean he won more states (which he did) and delegates (which he also did) but that he won by blocking Clinton’s path to victory and by putting himself in a position to win the nomination, as well as by gaining both cred [...]
I'm not sure he'd be Hillary's veep choice, Holly. He is a genuine phenomenon now, after all. Would he be willing to put that aside to be in the Clinton White House, not just with Hillary but will Bill and all of the old Clintonistas? I agree he'd boost Hillary's chances against McCain, though, if that's what it comes to.
BBQ- Hillary has the special interests who send their sheeple in to vote. I've watched dozens of campaign events on C-Span, R & D, and only Obama (and a bit w Edwards) got genuine reactions and passion.
The Hill voters want anyone but a Repub. They are not big on Hillary. The Obama folk want Obama- even if he was from Mars.
That is what it means to be the candidate of the people, not the establishment. The fact that McCain has taken the r nod means that the Dems need Obama more than before because Mac will try to portray Hill as establishment with him as a maverick. Not true, but the perception is that it is. He can't do that to Obama.
I know a lot of Obama voters (including Republicans) who have an anyone but Hillary attitude. Doesn't mean there aren't genuine Obama supporters just like there isn't genuine Clinton supporters.
You sound like you might be in that anyone but Hillary crowd.
Yes, I will not vote D if Hill is the nom, because she and Bill long ago screwed the working class, but the ability of Obama to get $ from the masses shows he's the people's choice, not Hill- the corporate choice.
The truth is, on Tuesday, Hillary Clinton regained her footing and once again is the presumptive nominee (the smart-money candidate). [sigh] However, all is not lost. Not only did Obama do better than expected in the larger states (and he won in several others), but
Now if only Clinton cannot cheat and get the Florida and Michigan delegates forced into the convention. (I figure she'll try to engineer something with the super-delegates, no matter what.) If their delegates may be seated, it's time for a caucus in Michigan and Florida first.
“Mac will try to portray Hill as establishment with him as a maverick”
If he were honest, he'd say he remains less of a Dem than Hillary is. All he has to say is “I am not Hillary Clinton, nor as bad as she” and he deserves to be elected. That's likely his only possible strategy, anyway.
Some of us saw Obama as Clinton's VP back in 2004, but things have changed now. Clinton needs an order-taker or a DC Dem fixture (long-termer), either solidly in the party leadership or a dim bulb such as Patty Murray (D-WA), someone who will be nothing but cooperative.
If you thought the Democratic race overshadowed the GOP race earlier, now just wait.
Obama will debate Clinton in Cleveland and somewhere in Texas (Austin would be my choice if I were the chooser) before the primaries there.
The Dem race has already been more interesting anyway because of proportional awarding of delegates rather than winner-take-all. And then there are those other, extra super-delegates:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120241780172051…
If you thought the Democratic race overshadowed the GOP race earlier, now just wait.
Obama will debate Clinton in Cleveland and somewhere in Texas (Austin would be my choice if I were the chooser) before the primaries there.
The Dem race has already been more interesting anyway because of proportional awarding of delegates rather than winner-take-all. And then there are those other, extra super-delegates:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120241780172051…