In an abrupt about face, presidential candidate Barack Obama has decided to throw his support behind the FISA compromise bill worked out between the white house and the democrat controlled congress after threatening to filibuster similar legislation earlier this year.
The original bill gathered controversy because it contained language modifying the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, allowing for wiretaps to be ordered without warrants or judicial oversight. The bill also provided immunity to telecommunications companies who, in the past, have given phone records to the government without proper warrants or subpoenas. The revised legislation would not only make it legal for telecoms to do so in the future, but would also provide retroactive immunity against lawsuits filed against these companies for violating their customers privacy rights.
The first version of this bill was stonewalled in congress because of its controversial nature. This was when Obama stood strongly opposed to this legislation. Recently, a new version was proposed, created out of a compromise between republican and democrat leaders. This new version contains the same warrantless wiretapping provisions, but some change to the telecom immunity language. Under this version, the telecoms are only immune to lawsuits if they can prove that they were informed by the government that it was legal to turn over such records. Of course, the telecoms were told this, and the passing of this legislation would basically give the telecoms the immunity they were looking for, just in a round about way. The only thing the democrats really gained from this compromise was a chance to save face, a chance that Obama jumped for. However, civil liberties groups and some left leaning pundits aren’t buying it.
For the first time, Obama has angered a great deal of his far left supporters. Obama says that he is supporting the compromise and recognizes the need to pass this legislation in a timely manor. I call it a cop out and a flip flop. A bill is not a compromise when one side gets everything they asked for and the other side gives up everything they were standing up to fight against.
I understand why the Obama campaign has reversed its position; they are trying to move toward the center in order to get votes in key swing states. However, they have made a grave miscalculation. Trying to appeal to the center by running away from leftist positions is a failing strategy for Obama for several reasons.
One reason would be because he is up against McCain. If Obama wants to try to compare his record against McCain on reaching over the isle, he is going to lose the fight. McCain has many years of experience and a proven bipartisan voting record on issues like campaign finance and immigration. Obama just does not have the senate experience to back up his bipartisan claims. That is not to say the Obama would not work toward a “Purple America,” but when Obama’s record is put next to John McCain, Obama falls short and independent voters can see this. Running to the center will not help Obama catch independent voters.
Another problem with this strategy is funding. By running away from the left, Obama risks damaging his reputation with left wing supporters. McCain has the same problem with his far right supporters as well. The difference in the two candidates is how they plan on financing their campaigns. McCain is taking public financing money, while Obama will rely on individual donations. Obama has been setting record fundraising levels because of his grass-roots campaign style and small individual donations. If he starts alienating his base, those donations will dry up fast. One example is Markos Moulitsas, founder of the Daily Kos website who has already said he plans of cutting back donations to Obama’s campaign now that Obama supports the new FISA legislation.
Finally, the Obama campaign has made the mistake of underestimating the values of independent voters. Independents and moderates tend to cast their ballots for a candidate, not a party. Integrity and trust are important issues, more important than some of the political posturing seen so commonly throughout the election season. By changing his position on the FISA legislation, Obama has compromised his leadership qualities. Facing off against McCain, who can be very firm in his beliefs, Obama’s ill-advised position swapping may be a very serious mistake that will hurt him with independents and moderates that he will need to win key swing states.
Whatever Obama’s reasons for changing his position and supporting the new FISA provisions for telecom immunity and warrantless wiretapping, here is what the public will see: a candidate who has completely changed his position on a fundamental issue, a candidate who cannot be trusted, a candidate who cannot keep his campaign promises, and a candidate giving into political pressure instead of following his core beliefs. If Obama truly believes that turning his back on his strongest supporters is the way to win this election, we will be welcoming president McCain come November.
Showing posts with label election. Show all posts
Showing posts with label election. Show all posts
Thursday, July 3, 2008
Monday, June 2, 2008
Clinton's Strategy: the inevitable loss prolonged
There are only 2 contests left and 31 delegates up for grabs in the democratic primary saga. At this point, here are the running estimated total delegate counts:
Source: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/democratic_delegate_count.html
Note: even if Obama were to take 100% of the vote in Montana and South Dakota, he would still not have enough to completely lock down the nomination without more super delegates. This total also comes from the Michigan/Florida compromise, both of which allowed Clinton to take more delegates then Obama (despite the fact that Obama’s name was not on the ballot in Michigan).
Obama now only needs 48 more delegates while Clinton needs 204. Obama leads Clinton in both pledged and super delegates. But the last two primaries are not enough to give Obama the win, so the race will be decided by super delegates. Clinton, now far behind, must convince not only the remaining 202 unpledged super delegates, to vote for her, but she also needs to flip at least 2 who already pledged support for Obama. This looks like a tall tale to me, especially considering the large lead Obama has, but Clinton is not ready to give up.
In order to convince all these delegates to flip to her camp, she makes the argument that she is more electable than Obama in the general election and that she is actually leading in the popular vote. If these statements are true, it certainly would convince some super delegates that perhaps Clinton is a better choice after all. But are they true?
Clinton claims she will do better than Obama in the general election. But look at the most recent polls located at real clear politics. In a match up between McCain and Clinton, some show McCain ahead by 2 while others show Clinton ahead by 2-4. The average is a 2 point advantage to Clinton. In a match up between Obama and McCain, most polls show a tie, while one poll shows Obama winning. The average comes to +0.7 points to Obama. As any statistician will tell you, the data is all within the statistical margin for error and there is no way to predict the results of either scenario. Thus, Clinton and Obama are both in statistical ties with McCain.
Ok, so Clinton does not really have a significantly better chance at defeating McCain in the general election, at least that recent polls can tell. But remember, all those polls measure is popular vote, and the election is not decided on popular vote. A recent Rasmussen Reports poll comparing McCain to Obama: “On Monday, Democrats continue to lead in states with 200 Electoral Votes while the GOP has the advantage in states with 189. States with 111 Votes are “leaners,” and states with 38 Votes are Toss-Ups. When “leaners” are added, the Democrats lead 260 to 240.” (http://rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/election_2008_electoral_college_update)
The general election race is also a toss up, but slightly favoring Obama. Unfortunately for Clinton, she really no longer has the argument that she can do better than Obama. While she makes good progress with the working middle class, Obama makes other states more competitive by reaching out to African Americans and young voters age 18-24.
Clintons other claim is that she is winning the popular vote in primary states. The “in primary states” is important because she is not counting states that hold caucuses. She is also counting the popular vote in Michigan where Obama’s name was not on the ballot. So sure, if she discounts 1/5 of the voting Americans and stack an entire state so that they must for her, then yes she has a popular vote advantage. But most maths would count caucus states, not count states like Michigan etc. Here is a good breakdown of how the popular vote really pans out (click to enlarge). (http://www.jedreport.com/2008/06/hillary-clinton.html)
So really, the claim Hillary is making about popular vote, is not only pointless, but it does not measure up to scrutiny. So Clinton is trying to convince the super delegates to vote for her because she would do better than Obama vs. McCain, and because she is winning the popular vote. Both of these statements are disputable or downright false.
Of course, Clinton could continue to fight for delegates all the way until the convention in August. But can she really win? Clinton now faces a unique problem, a no win scenario. Should she somehow manage to win all the remaining super delegates and somehow get the Democratic nomination, the entire deal would feel like something concocted in a smoke filled room. There would be allegations of corruption from both democrats and republicans and Clinton would lose a large number of democratic votes this November.
In reality, Clinton has no chance of becoming president because even if she can get the nomination, it would only be under circumstances that would prohibit her from being competitive in the general election. She is doomed to failure and does not appear to know it. Sorry Hillary, you were a strong candidate and set a record for the number of people voting for you in a primary (defeated only by Obama). It is really exciting to see such an intense match up of primary candidates, but it’s over now. It’s time to bow out, thank your supporters and move on.
| Obama | Clinton | ||
| Total(2,118 Needed to Win) | 2070 | 1914 | |
| Super Delegates | 823 | 331 | 290 |
| Pledged Delegates * | 3410 | 1739 | 1624 |
Note: even if Obama were to take 100% of the vote in Montana and South Dakota, he would still not have enough to completely lock down the nomination without more super delegates. This total also comes from the Michigan/Florida compromise, both of which allowed Clinton to take more delegates then Obama (despite the fact that Obama’s name was not on the ballot in Michigan).
Obama now only needs 48 more delegates while Clinton needs 204. Obama leads Clinton in both pledged and super delegates. But the last two primaries are not enough to give Obama the win, so the race will be decided by super delegates. Clinton, now far behind, must convince not only the remaining 202 unpledged super delegates, to vote for her, but she also needs to flip at least 2 who already pledged support for Obama. This looks like a tall tale to me, especially considering the large lead Obama has, but Clinton is not ready to give up.
In order to convince all these delegates to flip to her camp, she makes the argument that she is more electable than Obama in the general election and that she is actually leading in the popular vote. If these statements are true, it certainly would convince some super delegates that perhaps Clinton is a better choice after all. But are they true?
Clinton claims she will do better than Obama in the general election. But look at the most recent polls located at real clear politics. In a match up between McCain and Clinton, some show McCain ahead by 2 while others show Clinton ahead by 2-4. The average is a 2 point advantage to Clinton. In a match up between Obama and McCain, most polls show a tie, while one poll shows Obama winning. The average comes to +0.7 points to Obama. As any statistician will tell you, the data is all within the statistical margin for error and there is no way to predict the results of either scenario. Thus, Clinton and Obama are both in statistical ties with McCain.
Ok, so Clinton does not really have a significantly better chance at defeating McCain in the general election, at least that recent polls can tell. But remember, all those polls measure is popular vote, and the election is not decided on popular vote. A recent Rasmussen Reports poll comparing McCain to Obama: “On Monday, Democrats continue to lead in states with 200 Electoral Votes while the GOP has the advantage in states with 189. States with 111 Votes are “leaners,” and states with 38 Votes are Toss-Ups. When “leaners” are added, the Democrats lead 260 to 240.” (http://rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/election_2008_electoral_college_update)
The general election race is also a toss up, but slightly favoring Obama. Unfortunately for Clinton, she really no longer has the argument that she can do better than Obama. While she makes good progress with the working middle class, Obama makes other states more competitive by reaching out to African Americans and young voters age 18-24.
Clintons other claim is that she is winning the popular vote in primary states. The “in primary states” is important because she is not counting states that hold caucuses. She is also counting the popular vote in Michigan where Obama’s name was not on the ballot. So sure, if she discounts 1/5 of the voting Americans and stack an entire state so that they must for her, then yes she has a popular vote advantage. But most maths would count caucus states, not count states like Michigan etc. Here is a good breakdown of how the popular vote really pans out (click to enlarge). (http://www.jedreport.com/2008/06/hillary-clinton.html)
So really, the claim Hillary is making about popular vote, is not only pointless, but it does not measure up to scrutiny. So Clinton is trying to convince the super delegates to vote for her because she would do better than Obama vs. McCain, and because she is winning the popular vote. Both of these statements are disputable or downright false.
Of course, Clinton could continue to fight for delegates all the way until the convention in August. But can she really win? Clinton now faces a unique problem, a no win scenario. Should she somehow manage to win all the remaining super delegates and somehow get the Democratic nomination, the entire deal would feel like something concocted in a smoke filled room. There would be allegations of corruption from both democrats and republicans and Clinton would lose a large number of democratic votes this November.
In reality, Clinton has no chance of becoming president because even if she can get the nomination, it would only be under circumstances that would prohibit her from being competitive in the general election. She is doomed to failure and does not appear to know it. Sorry Hillary, you were a strong candidate and set a record for the number of people voting for you in a primary (defeated only by Obama). It is really exciting to see such an intense match up of primary candidates, but it’s over now. It’s time to bow out, thank your supporters and move on.
Tuesday, May 27, 2008
Clinton vs. Obama ... and McCain
The last few Democratic primaries are approaching. The convention is only a few months away. Yet the Dems have not chosen who they will nominate. Obama may have a majority of delegates, but Clinton has said that she will remain in the race as long as it takes, which means the convention in August. What does this mean for the Democratic Party?
There are 2 scenarios. One, the 2 potential Democratic candidates will continue the campaign of mud throwing accusations. There will be a winner… that looks really bad, dirty, with a reputation for negative campaigning. Meanwhile, McCain gets to run his campaign the way he likes, virtually unopposed by any united front. From now until August is McCain’s chance to accrue a lead so vast, that the eventual nominee cannot possibly catch up.
The other possibility plays out a little different. With Obama and Clinton still in contest for the nomination, they dominate the media (because lets face it, big nasty TV fights are good for ratings). All this free media attention drowns out McCain’s message and allows the Democrats to control the news stories up until the convention. There is some evidence that this could occur. According to open secrets, in April Obama raised $30,694,196 and Clinton raised $25,787,239 compared to McCain’s $18,310,686.
Those numbers amaze me. Together, the Democratic presidential candidates raked in $56,481,435, an amount more than 3 times what the Republican candidate raised. To me, this shows that the Barack vs. Hillary onslaught is drawing much more attention to the Democratic side, and leaving McCain far behind.
But Democrats should not go out celebrating just yet. With all the bitter feelings on both sides, the primary winner might very well alienate some of Democrats who supported their rival candidate. These people might not show up on Election Day, or worst case (for the Dems), they show up and vote McCain. McCain is exactly the right Republican for this to happen. His experience commands a great deal of respect. Enough to attract some of the Democratic supporters? We’ll see.
There are 2 scenarios. One, the 2 potential Democratic candidates will continue the campaign of mud throwing accusations. There will be a winner… that looks really bad, dirty, with a reputation for negative campaigning. Meanwhile, McCain gets to run his campaign the way he likes, virtually unopposed by any united front. From now until August is McCain’s chance to accrue a lead so vast, that the eventual nominee cannot possibly catch up.
The other possibility plays out a little different. With Obama and Clinton still in contest for the nomination, they dominate the media (because lets face it, big nasty TV fights are good for ratings). All this free media attention drowns out McCain’s message and allows the Democrats to control the news stories up until the convention. There is some evidence that this could occur. According to open secrets, in April Obama raised $30,694,196 and Clinton raised $25,787,239 compared to McCain’s $18,310,686.
Those numbers amaze me. Together, the Democratic presidential candidates raked in $56,481,435, an amount more than 3 times what the Republican candidate raised. To me, this shows that the Barack vs. Hillary onslaught is drawing much more attention to the Democratic side, and leaving McCain far behind.
But Democrats should not go out celebrating just yet. With all the bitter feelings on both sides, the primary winner might very well alienate some of Democrats who supported their rival candidate. These people might not show up on Election Day, or worst case (for the Dems), they show up and vote McCain. McCain is exactly the right Republican for this to happen. His experience commands a great deal of respect. Enough to attract some of the Democratic supporters? We’ll see.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)