Tag: Nevada

The Lay of the Land | A Moment of Zen.

“‘Obama has many more paths to the nomination than McCain,’ the source said. ‘They think they can defend the Kerry states. Iowa is gone. That’s five votes. New Mexico is in the bag. Then Obama has four or five different ways of winning. He can go Nevada or Colorado, Virginia, any of those, even Indiana. McCain has got to run the board, the whole Bush table.’” According to London’s Telegraph, Team Obama is feeling confident about victory these days. “We’re much stronger on the ground in Virginia and North Carolina than people realise. If we get out the vote this may not be close at all.“

In related news, the McCain camp currently seems lost in the quagmire, particularly after Obama’s post-debate bounce and recent developments on the economic front. “‘What begins to happen is that the margin that’s been in place begins to solidify more and more,’ said Matthew Dowd, who was Bush’s chief strategist in 2004 and is now an independent analyst. ‘There’s only two ways this can go,’ he added. ‘It will either solidify with an Obama four- to five- point lead, or it will loosen and go back to close and go back and forth.’” In other words, another McCain campaign stunt incoming.

Update: I know the EW cover below is apropos of nothing above, really. On the other hand, it is election-related, and I found it laugh-out-loud funny. Hat tips to The Oak and Peasants Under Glass.

The Battle Plan.

“Clearly, and I’m being cautious, I think it’s going to be a close race. If Obama wins the 255 votes in the states where he’s favored, then to get to 270 he needs to choose from the following menu: 1) Win Ohio, which takes him to 275; 2) win in the West — Nevada, New Mexico and Colorado, for 274; 3) win the three N’s (Nevada, New Mexico, New Hampshire) for 269, plus one other state; or 4) win two of the three N’s and either Colorado or Virginia.” With the general election begun in earnest, Democratic pollster Paul Maslin surveys the electoral vote terrain for Salon.

It don’t mean a thing, if you ain’t got those swings.

As posted here awhile ago, national polls have consistently shown Sen. Barack Obama performing better against John McCain than Sen. Hillary Clinton. Well, the polling firm Rasmussen has taken the question a step further, and begun asking swing states what they think of the three remaining candidates. Check these out.

  • Colorado: Obama beats McCain by 7 (46%-39%), McCain beats Clinton by 14 (49%-35%).
  • Minnesota: Obama beats McCain by 15 (53%-38%), McCain beats Clinton by 5 (47%-42%).
  • New Hampshire: Obama beats McCain by 13 (49%-36%), McCain beats Clinton by 2 (43%-41%).
  • Nevada: Obama beats McCain by 12 (50%-38%), McCain beats Clinton by 9 (49%-40%).
  • Oregon: Obama beats McCain by 9 (49%-40%), McCain beats Clinton by 3 (45%-42%).
  • Pennsylvania: Obama beats McCain by 10 (49%-39%), McCain beats Clinton by 2 (44%-42%).

    The only swing state studied thus far that can give the Clinton campaign any comfort is Missouri, which shows a statistical tie: McCain beats Clinton by 1 (43%-42%), McCain beats Obama by 2 (42%-40%).

    On the issue of electability, the choice seems clear. Update: SurveyUSA has more, and they follow the same pattern.

  • Iowa: Obama beats McCain by 10 (51%-41%), McCain beats Clinton by 11 (52%-41%).
  • Virginia: Obama beats McCain by 6 (51%-45%), McCain beats Clinton by 3 (48%-45%).
  • Wisconsin: Obama beats McCain by 10 (52%-42%), McCain beats Clinton by 7 (49%-42%).

    • Our Rove Problem.

    Another column update, as per yesterday:

    TNR’s Jonathan Chait examines the “vast left-wing conspiracy” emerging against the Clintons. “Something strange happened the other day. All these different people — friends, co-workers, relatives, people on a liberal e-mail list I read — kept saying the same thing: They’ve suddenly developed a disdain for Bill and Hillary Clinton. Maybe this is just a coincidence, but I think we’ve reached an irrevocable turning point in liberal opinion of the Clintons…Going into the campaign, most of us liked Hillary Clinton just fine, but the fact that tens of millions of Americans are seized with irrational loathing for her suggested that she might not be a good Democratic nominee. But now that loathing seems a lot less irrational.“

    The American Prospect‘s Paul Waldman agrees with the assessment that the Clintons are running a thoroughly Rovian primary campaign: “Three weeks ago, I wrote that Clinton was working to make voters uneasy, utilizing just enough fear to encourage them to stick with the known quantity in the race. But in the time since, her campaign has begun to appear more and more as though it’s being run by Karl Rove or Lee Atwater. Pick your tired metaphor — take-no-prisoners, brass knuckles, no-holds-barred, playing for keeps — however you describe it, the Clinton campaign is not only not going easy on Obama, they’re doing so in awfully familiar ways. So many of the ingredients of a typical GOP campaign are there, in addition to fear. We have the efforts to make it harder for the opponent’s voters to get to the polls (the Nevada lawsuit seeking to shut down at-large caucus sites in Las Vegas, to which the Clinton campaign gave its tacit support). We have, depending on how you interpret the events of the last couple of weeks, the exploitation of racial divisions and suspicions (including multiple Clinton surrogates criticizing Obama for his admitted teenage drug use). And most of all, we have an utterly shameless dishonesty.”“

    Vanity Fair‘s Bruce Feirstein has had just about enough of Bill Clinton: “Clinton’s response offered an unusual lens into the powder-keg that is our former commander-in-chief: Starting with an almost jocular dismissal of the accusation, he then proceeded to wind himself up into a finger-pointing fury, attacking Barack Obama, painting himself as the victim, and generally blaming the press for everything, before walking away with the taunt, ‘Shame on you.’ It was not, well, presidential.“

    Nevada: The House Wins…or does it?

    CNN projects that Hillary Clinton has won the Nevada caucus. (At 90% and counting, we’re at Clinton 51%, Obama 45%, Edwards 4%(!))

    Sigh. Well, to be honest, I don’t feel all that bad about this loss. I mean, Nevada would have been a great pick-up for Obama, but if he wins my home state of South Carolina next weekend — which is favorable terrain — we’re still going into February 5 with a 2-2 split. And given that things seem to have been shaking this way in past days, I’m heartened to see Obama managed to keep it relatively close against Clinton. Besides, while Senator Obama was apparently a star in Reno (Obama 46% — Clinton 31%), he lost big in heavily-populated Clark County (Clinton 55% — Obama 35%), which is usually most people’s experience in Vegas. So be it.

    The biggest surprise here, frankly, is the Edwards collapse. Less than 5%? Still, I wouldn’t expect him to make any big moves until after South Carolina, if at all.

    Looking at the CNN entrance poll numbers, the demographic breakdown remains very troubling. For one, the gender gap continues (Women: Clinton 52%, Obama 35%; White Women: Clinton 57%, Obama 28%.) For another, it looks like the Clinton-Obama generation gap has grown even worse. Note these dismaying stats:

    Voters 18-29: Obama 57%, Clinton 30%
    Voters 30-44: Obama 42%, Clinton 37%
    Voters 45-59: Clinton 46%, Obama 39%
    Voters 60+: Clinton 61%, Obama 28%

    Voters under 45: Obama 48%, Clinton 34%
    Voters over 45: Clinton 54%, Obama 33%

    The affiliations:

    Democrats: Clinton 51%, Obama 36%
    Independents: Obama 46%, Clinton 35%

    And then you get the race breakdown:

    Whites: Clinton 52%, Obama 31%
    African Americans: Obama 79%, Clinton 16%
    Hispanics: Clinton 64%, Obama 23%

    So — right now — it looks to be young people, independents, and African-Americans for Obama, with old people, Latinos, and white women for Clinton. Perhaps most notably, voters under 30 are breaking 2-1 for Obama, while voters over 60 are breaking 2-1 for Clinton. If that dynamic holds, it obviously favors Clinton in this primary season. (Although, if and when those young voters justifiably decide to turn against the process and stay home should Clinton win, given her campaign’s scummy tactics, it’s all around bad for the Democrats.)

    Speaking of which, whatever the demographic breakdown, I have to think the Clinton campaign’s lowball maneuvering will redound badly against them as we move forward. Even notwithstanding last weeks’ race card wallowing and Giuliani-ish grandstanding, we now have attempts at voter suppression, more false mailers, blatant lying about Obama’s record, Yucca and otherwise, union-busting rhetoric, and even anti-Obama robo-calls. If we Dems aren’t going to take a stand against this sort of Rovian garbage within our own party, then we’ve absolutely no business bitching about similar behavior by the GOP.

    On to South Carolina.

    Update: Hmm, well that‘s interesting. After all is said and done, it seems Barack Obama actually won the Nevada delegate count, 13-12. “The math turns out to be a bit confusing, but the shorthand is this: The more populous Clark County, which Clinton won, awarded a even number of delegates, and Clinton and Obama split those down the middle. Meanwhile, the more rural areas, which Obama won, awarded an odd number of delegates, which gave Obama the edge. ‘We showed real strength statewide,’ campaign manager David Plouffe said in the call.” Well, ok then. That’s a nice gift, but the demographic concerns remain.

    Update 2: How bad was the situation on the ground? Bad enough that Obama campaign manager David Plouffe is going on the record about it. At this point, widespread malfeasance by the Clinton campaign sounds eminently plausible.(And what the heck was Bill doing?)

    “They think they’re better than you are.”

    “Of course, Hillary and Bill aren’t suggesting that the 6 million members of unions endorsing Hillary should be independent. Union members should still vote for Hillary when union leaders say they should, but they also should vote for Hillary when the union says they shouldn’t. That’s the kind of independent thinking the Clintons want.” Ronald Cass examines the new tactic the Clintons have taken to in Nevada: union-busting. Meanwhile, Bill Clinton remains on a roll, and argues he and Chelsea personally witnessed voter intimidation at a Las Vegas casino, claims that would appear to be “technically impossible.”

    Did I mention it’s been 10 years since Monicagate? (I wouldn’t expect a 10th-anniversary edition of And the Horse He Rode in On.)

    There She Goes Again.

    “She mocked our bill…She said, she’s been saying over the past couple of weeks, ‘You know, this bill doesn’t do anything. You know, it was just a little, symbolic bill. If Sen. Obama thinks that’s a big accomplishment, that’s his right.’ Keep in mind she had voted against some of the provisions that would have made it even stronger. So only in Washington can you vote to weaken a bill and then complain later it wasn’t stronger.”

    In a new stump speech, Senator Obama calls out Hillary Clinton for her evasions and mistruths on Yucca Mountain, the bankruptcy bill, the payroll tax cap, the ethics reform bill, and a host of other issues. “Obama then said he looked at what she said about the bill on the floor of the Senate and reports back that what she said was ‘this is excellent legislation and I’m proud to be voting for it cause this is really making progress.‘” To be honest, I’m feeling a bit pessimistic about the caucus tomorrow given the recent polls, but here’s hoping enough Nevada voters see through Clinton’s recent distortions to get seriously aggravated about them.

    Nevada Judge: Casino Caucuses Cool.

    Word comes down that District Court Judge James Mahan has rejected Clinton supporters’ late-entry lawsuit against the casino caucus plan decided last March. (By the way, for non RSS-readers, I updated down here about yet another angry outburst of misinformation by former President Clinton. The video of his latest sad rant is here, and the reason why it’s obviously deceptive malarkey is explained here.)

    Another False Clinton Mailer.

    Another state, another patently false mailer. According to TPM‘s Greg Sargent, the Clinton campaign has now blanketed Nevada with the negative mailer above, one which (once again) falsely distorts Senator Obama’s record. It reads: “Nevada families need to keep more of their hard-earned dollars not less…we need a president that will help hard-working families keep more of what they earn.”

    It then goes on to read: “Barack Obama. A plan with a trillion-dollar tax increase on America’s hard-working families. Lifting the cap on Social Security taxes to send more of Nevada families’ hard-earned dollars to Washington. Senator Obama said “I think that lifting the cap [on Social Security taxes] is probably going to be the best option.“

    So, what’s the problem here? Mainly this: Only somebody who hangs out with the monied likes of Robert Johnson all day could honestly think Senator Obama’s plan involves a tax increase for “hard-working families.” Let’s let Senator Obama explain it:

    “Now there’s one more way of solving the problem. And that is raising the cap on the payroll tax. Now what that means is, currently, you only pay Social Security on the first $97,000 of income. Now it turns out that here in Nevada, 97% of the people in Nevada make $97,000 a year or less. So essentially, everybody except 3% — if this was a random sample of Nevada, there are only about 3% of you who make more than that, everybody else, you gotta pay payroll tax on 100% of your income.

    Now, what I’ve said is that what we should do is we should adjust the cap, so that billionaires like Warren Buffett are paying more, because right now they’re paying a fraction of 1% of their income to payroll tax. And my answer is, that’s not fair. Why would we have the wealthiest Americans pay such a smaller percentage of the payroll tax when everyone else is
    paying basically 100%?

    So I propose raising the cap. We might exempt middle class folks for maybe $97,000 for up to $200,000; there might be some exemptions, but those people are making over $200, $250,000, they can afford to pay a little more on payroll tax. So this is what I propose, this is what Senator Clinton is calling a trillion-dollar tax cut on hard-working Americans.”

    So, which is it, then? Does Senator Clinton think the top 3% of Nevadans represents the “hard-working families” of the middle-class, or is this another blatant attempt at misinformation disguised to confuse voters about Obama’s real record? If I had to guess, I’m thinking this is the latter, and it’s another disgusting, GOP-worthy lowball.

    Back from the Brink.

    Despite the best efforts of Tim Russert, who asked rinky-dink meta-questions about the past week for most of the first segment, the Democratic debate in Los Vegas was a pause for breath tonight, with Barack Obama, John Edwards, and Hillary Clinton all going out of their way to dial back the heat and try to bridge the identity politics chasms that have yawned open of late. As such, with all three candidates on their best behavior and looking to avoid direct confrontations that might get nasty, it was the type of debate that made the party and all three contenders look good, but also probably didn’t change very many votes.

    From where I sat — and this will surprise exactly no one — I thought Barack Obama came off the best of the three. He seemed gracious in his call to move past last week’s racial firestorm and deflected the — many — attempts by Russert to re-inject race into the debate. He offered the only funny moments of the evening (Brian Williams thinking he was in LA notwithstanding) and seemed convincing and natural. And, perhaps most importantly, he displayed a command of policy specifics and a capacity for nuance, which once again belies the argument that he’s just a oratorical Hope machine. He seemed, in a word, presidential. (Although I do wish, when asked when he’d first decided to run for president, he’d simply said “kindergarten.”)

    John Edwards was as good and on-message as always, but it didn’t seem like he managed to do anything tonight that would be a game-changer. (Then again, in an atmosphere of such explicit convivality as tonight, Edwards’ central message — I will fight for you! — didn’t have much of a chance to gain traction anyway. That being said, he did manage to trump Clinton’s dubious “35 years of experience” claim by announcing that “for 54 years I’ve been fighting with every fiber of my being.” 54 years of fighting? Hey, let’s not forget those nine months in the womb, there.) Edwards also brought up one of the first campaign finance questions we’ve heard in awhile — one in which Obama announced he’d ultimately be for public financing, which made me happy — but due to the moderators not seeming to understand their own rules, it never got around to Senator Clinton, where it was likely — and should have been — directed.

    Hillary Clinton came across better tonight than she did in New Hampshire, and, to her credit, she also did her part to uphold the truce (at least in public.) But — again, not a shocker here — I still found her dismayingly evasive on several questions: on Robert Johnson (do you believe his ridiculous clarification or do you think his comments were “out of bounds”?), on whether her opponents were qualified (she couldn’t just say yes?), on the bankruptcy bill (you voted for it in 2001 but was glad it didn’t pass?), and of course, on the politics of fear question, to take a few examples. But, as always, she had done her homework, she smartly went after Dubya a few times, and she had the talking points ready to attack on the Yucca Mountain question. (Without meaning to dismiss the important issue at hand, it’s safe to say “Yucca” is apparently Nevadan for “ethanol.”)

    So, at any rate, I’d say Obama came off the best tonight, but Edwards and Clinton were both solid as well. (And I would presume supporters of the other two candidates would say the same, with perhaps the names rearranged.) More than anything, tonight was a chance for tempers to cool and for the party to show it was ready — despite the best efforts of Mr. Russert — to discuss matters of substance again. Still, with Nevada this Saturday and South Carolina right around the corner, I wouldn’t expect the next debate to be so congenial.