home

Rich Drives A Square Peg Into a Round Hole

In arguing that Barack Obama is a shoo-in in November, Frank Rich makes a strange case:

[T]his isn’t 2004, and the fixation on that one demographic in the Clinton-Obama contest has obscured the big picture. The rise in black voters and young voters of all races in Democratic primaries is re-weighting the electorate. Look, for instance, at Ohio, the crucial swing state that Mr. Kerry lost by 119,000 votes four years ago. . . . Voters under 30 (up by some 245,000 voters) accounted for 16 percent, up from 9 in 2004. Those younger Ohio voters even showed up in larger numbers than the perennially reliable over-65 crowd.

If Rich had dug a little deeper into the exit poll numbers, he might have realized that Hillary Clinton split white voters 18-29 with Obama in Ohio. He might have learned that Clinton swamped Obama among white voters in every other age group. He might have learned that in Pennsylvania, Clinton won white voters 18-29 by 52-48. He might have learned that in Florida, Clinton won non-blacks 18-29 by 47-36. And so on. [More...]

The concern with Obama regarding white working class voters is focused in Ohio, Pennsylvania and Florida. So far, there is not strong evidence that Obama will do better than Kerry in those states, "new voters" notwithstanding. The reality is Rich has to accept one or both of two things - Hillary Clinton has extraordinary appeal with these voters and/or Obama has troubles with them. The ostrich act ain't gonna cut it.

< When Their Superdelegates Do It, It's Okay? | SNL a Hatchet Job Tonight? >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Rich is typically ... (5.00 / 6) (#4)
    by pluege on Sat May 10, 2008 at 10:44:30 PM EST
    one of the worst commentators in the MSM.

    The assumption throughout the primary (5.00 / 2) (#52)
    by tnjen on Sun May 11, 2008 at 03:30:16 AM EST
    ...has always been that all new voters and the surge in primary voters are all exclusively Obama voters. It's a flat-out lie and a fatal mistake that's leading to arrogance and the notion in the Obama camp that, 'oh we don't need those voters' (white working class, latinos, asians, elderly etc.) we've got this new army.

    Parent
    I would really like to know if they are all that (none / 0) (#86)
    by derridog on Sun May 11, 2008 at 01:27:43 PM EST
    clueless and never check their facts or if they are doing this deliberately to force Hillary from the race and anoint their beloved one, St. Obama.

    It's hard to believe that they don't know what they are saying is not true. So I am inclined to believe the latter.

    Parent

    Thanks for (none / 0) (#73)
    by 1jane on Sun May 11, 2008 at 08:42:14 AM EST
    posting Rich's entire column. The full context of his words give the excerpt its true meaning.

    Parent
    Ohio (5.00 / 8) (#6)
    by Athena on Sat May 10, 2008 at 10:46:02 PM EST
    It's not necessarily true that Kerry even lost Ohio.  Too many shenanigans remain unexplained - and given political cover by the GOP Sec. of State Blackwell.

    Assuming that Obama can carry some kind of children's crusade into the White House is ridiculous.

    But Frank Rich is deep into the sinkhole with Obama.  Has been this whole season.  If he has to make the numbers up, he will.

    Well whatever may be (5.00 / 7) (#32)
    by frankly0 on Sun May 11, 2008 at 12:12:55 AM EST
    the case about Kerry's losing Ohio or not, what's certainly true is that Obama lost Ohio in the primary to Hillary, and by a good margin.

    How do you turn that into a hopeful sign for Obama in the general? Only by the most shameless kind of cherry-picking of exit poll results.

    Which is, of course, a Frank Rich specialty.

    I think he's so dumb he doesn't realize there's a logical problem there; I think he thinks this is how one thinks.

    Parent

    I would just point out (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by independent thinker on Sun May 11, 2008 at 03:12:13 AM EST
    that who voters choose in a primary and who they choose in a GE don't always corelate. There is plenty of historical evidence that Democrats who voted for one candidate during a primary, backed another candidate during the eventual nominee in the GE.

    There is a real difference between voting in a primary and voting in a GE. And in this historic primary it is natural that things split fairly evenly. I believe strongly that most democrats, once faced with the clear policy differences between McCain and the Democratic nominee will choose to back the Democrat...even if that is Obama.

    And before anyone anyone responds that I am just a hopeless Obama backer, I'd like to say that Clinton does have a case to make regarding her constituencey. I just think that in the end Obama can bridge the gap in the GE...especially if Clinton endorses him and campaigns for him this fall. I also believe the reverse is true. Should Clinton somehow win the nomination, an endorsement by Obama would go a long way toward bridging the divide.

    My personal preference is for Obama, but I WILL support Clinton is she gets the nomination.

    Parent

    The question remains (5.00 / 2) (#57)
    by IzikLA on Sun May 11, 2008 at 04:03:50 AM EST
    Why take a chance on Obama getting those votes when it is proven more so that Clinton will get them?  The unity, bridging the gap thing?  If that is it then I just don't buy it.  Show me please SOMEWHERE in his career SOMETHING that I could attribute to this and then we can discuss.

    Parent
    I appreciate your fairness, IT, but... (5.00 / 4) (#77)
    by kempis on Sun May 11, 2008 at 09:00:53 AM EST
    I believe strongly that most democrats, once faced with the clear policy differences between McCain and the Democratic nominee will choose to back the Democrat...even if that is Obama.

    Most will. The question is how large that "most" will be. 90%? Then Obama has a chance. 75%? Not so much. I'm BTD or another number-person can come up with the exact figure, but Obama has to win a significant majority of Clinton supporters in Ohio and PA to carry those states.

    Here's the problem, and I know whereof I speak because I've lived in Western PA for the past 25 years: Obama can't do it. And it's not about race but about culture, those hard-to-pin down things that create a sense of "one of us."

    Working class people, men and women, are by necessity scrappers and they respect scrappers. Where I live amid the descendants of the Eastern Europeans who slaved in Carnegie's Steel Mills before unions, the people are hard-working, unpretentious, plain-spoken, caring, and devoted to parish and family. Economic anxiety has been a fact of their lives and their parents' lives and their grandparents' lives and so on. As a result, they are especially proud of what they have earned and obsess on keeping their small yards neat and their paint fresh. They are hardy, decent, proud people, much like my own Appalachian family. And they are sensitive to class. They know the educated "snobs" don't fully respect them, and they don't much care. They know their lives revolving around family and holidays and major rituals of christenings, and first communions, and marriages, and death are rich and satisfying. Their lives are rooted in deep attachments to family and community. They may not know exactly what arugula is, but they'd prefer iceberg lettuce anyway.

    I've lived and taught here for 25 years and I've learned that one of the biggest compliments working class folks in the Ohio Valley can give you is that you're "down to earth." I know I'm effectively connecting with my students whenever someone praises me for being "down to earth."

    Obama is the anti-down-to-earth candidate. McCain trumps him in coming across as plainspoken and no nonsense and tough. He may not have policy plans that favor working class people's economic interests, but truth be told, they have essential faith in their country and in their own ability to keep their heads above water, come what may. Yeah, they'd prefer having a Clinton back in the White House because the 90s were better days, but given a choice between Obama and McCain, they'll go with the one they can respect and connect with more on a personal level, and that will most likely be McCain: war hero, maverick, experienced.

    All of this is a longwinded way of saying that I think most of the working-class Democrats in Ohio and PA will choose McCain over Obama. And they'll make the difference. OH voters kept it close enough between Kerry and Bush that Blackwell was able to put his thumb on the scales, and PA was too close to call until around 11:30 PM when Kerry was finally declared the winner--by less than 2%.

    This is not Obama country; it's McCain country. The Democrats could have possibly won OH and PA with Hillary, but not with Obama. No way. And without OH and PA and FL, it's game. set. match. GOP.

    Parent

    correction (none / 0) (#78)
    by kempis on Sun May 11, 2008 at 09:02:43 AM EST
    "Im sure BTD or another number person...."

    Sheesh. I typoed myself into assuming BTD's identity. Sorry 'bout that.

    Parent

    Class Matters (none / 0) (#83)
    by Athena on Sun May 11, 2008 at 10:58:54 AM EST
    Excellent summation of the deep resonance of class and why it makes no sense to hope for a miracle with Obama when a sure thing with Clinton exists now.

    Parent
    Too little too late. There is NO way I will vote (none / 0) (#88)
    by derridog on Sun May 11, 2008 at 01:33:05 PM EST
    for Obama. Cynthia McKinney is looking better and better.

    Parent
    I know. I can't grasp the logic either. (none / 0) (#87)
    by derridog on Sun May 11, 2008 at 01:31:37 PM EST
    Obama loses in the Democratic Primary that allows crossover voting, but he's supposed to WIN in the GE when the Republicans and Independents who DIDN"T vote for him in the primary will be voting?

    Maybe I'm just not that good with THE MATH!

    Parent

    Don't confuse them with facts BTD (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by myiq2xu on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:17:54 PM EST
    They transcend facts

    Why is it being assumed that in the general (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by Anne on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:26:57 PM EST
    election, all of these "new" voters will  automatically go into the Obama column if he is the nominee?  Is Rich seriously trying to tell us that none of the new voters registered for the chance to vote for Clinton?

    I mean, if that's Rich's argument, Obama should have won every single contest to date, right?

    I've decided life is more fun when I read "real" fiction, not this baloney being written by people like Rich and Dowd.

    Rich: see the WaPo Fact Checker (5.00 / 2) (#61)
    by catfish on Sun May 11, 2008 at 05:00:53 AM EST
    Pundits and Make-Pretend Analaysis (5.00 / 4) (#22)
    by datadriven on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:30:45 PM EST
    The exit poll analysis I've seen has been truly awful. We seem to have race and income as the two key drivers with sometimes gender and age tossed into the mix. Seldom are they put in together with mediating variables (how people think), as if the computations might cause the calculator to melt.

    I'm assuming that the candidates have their own research firms using cluster analytic or latent class techniques to locate & size segments and then determining: (a) the positioning of the candidates by segment across on the standard attribute association task; (b) the propensity of each segment to vote one way or another; (c) the psychographic profile of the segment and (d) the media channels and messages to use for each segment.

    Once the segments are defined one could assemble them like lego blocks to hit 50.1% and they'd probably be pretty complicated. And, get this, the segments might even be ISSUES BASED! Why we might find that Hillary's supporters are young chronic disease sufferers, seniors concerned about social security, teachers (of varying ages) concerned about schools, the list could go on and on. Instead of this type of analysis, we have analysis based simply almost exclusively on demographic categories. Sometimes we have ham-handed questions like: "Was race an issue?" "Was the economy an issue?" Well, compared to what? On What types of scale? Are we spreading 100 points across 20 issues? Since the exits capture demographics and a tiny bit more, the data installs blinders on our well compensated pundits. They appear to be consumed with demographics rather than cognitive processes.

    Bear in mind that the segmentation exercise is a staple in consumer research trade. It's a simple useful piece of analysis that's done on everything from toothpaste to coffee to breafast cereal to aerosolized cheese in a can.

    Assuming that the campaigns are doing a LOT better job of understanding the electorate, then why are we left with this two by two table garbage analysis from our great paper of record. Rich's column couldn't even throw me a control variable. Demand better research.

    Elementary my dear Sir. (5.00 / 5) (#24)
    by wurman on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:45:25 PM EST
    The pundits couldn't even read the research reports on such data  . . . . .

    much less understand & use it in a column.

    Parent

    He doesn't know anything (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by daria g on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:54:53 PM EST
    And Dowd is worse.

    I expect several of my liberal Obama fan friends will be mailing this to everyone and posting it on their Facebook shortly.  (Not kidding.)  These idiotic pundits were the enemy to them.. up until they decided Hillary Clinton was a monstrous, ruthless race-baiting evil b***h from hell.  Now they're OK.

    Remind me of Frank Rich's ... (5.00 / 2) (#38)
    by Robot Porter on Sun May 11, 2008 at 01:14:05 AM EST
    credentials as political commentator?

    He was a theater critic for 13 years.  And a preening, self-important one at that.

    And like most Obama supporters he clearly failed third grade math.

    In fact, I'm sure there are third graders more qualified to talk about politics than him.

    Here you go (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by mg7505 on Sun May 11, 2008 at 01:21:31 AM EST
    He was a theater critic for 13 years

    From theater to political theater. The latter has less substance, so I consider it a demotion. Neither has much to do with reality or basic math skills.

    Parent

    Have you ever tried (5.00 / 4) (#39)
    by mg7505 on Sun May 11, 2008 at 01:17:50 AM EST
    getting a young person excited about something twice? They've been excited about Obama once; I don't see them getting excited about him again ... 5 months from now. The election will land during midterm exams for students, making the hip college-age crowd unlikely to turn out. Plus Obama has lost whatever inspirational appeal he supposedly had, the MSM is about to turn on him (as soon as they stop dancing over Hillary's grave), and he hasn't done a thing to get Clinton's supporters over to his side.

    I wonder what the MSM is going to report on between now and November. Just endless analysis of polls? Given how they've vowed not to touch the issues, we'll just have to wait for McCain and Obama to start sniping at each other. I dread that they'll parrot Republican swiftboating lies, or do inane stuff like talk about Obama's pot-smoking or the bitter comment. Judging by what's coming next, the primaries have actually been alright. Except for the Clinton-hating.

    I really disagree with this generalization (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by jfung79 on Sun May 11, 2008 at 03:21:59 AM EST
    I'm a young person, I'm a proud Hillary supporter, and I don't think it's a stretch to think that young people will vote in droves in November for whoever the nominee is.  The youth vote has helped in battleground states even before this year, like in Minneosta in 2000 and 2004, so the higher youth vote this year even if the fervor dies down somewhat is nothing to be dismissed.  

    Parent
    The BHO brand was different-distinctive-unique (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by datadriven on Sun May 11, 2008 at 07:34:55 AM EST
    The standard trajectory of a brand would be to capture DDU (different, distinctive and unqiue) among "trendsetters" and then increase its relevance and market coverage. After a while, the brand would become relevant and not distinctive-- a commodity like toilet tissue.

    I have not seen the data on political information for the BHO voters, but there's fifty years of ANES data that shows a lower level of political information and sophistication among new voters than their more seasoned counterparts.

    BHO's appeals were always "of the man"; in the early primary season he'd wade through the crowd touching people. It looked like Louis XIV curing scrofula with the "King's Touch". Unlike any other candidate he'd spend 15 minutes recounting his overly-familiar biography. In debates, he seemed, well, like an Illinois State Senator who had only a glancing familiarity policy disputes and bureaucratic apparatus that he'd have to preside over. David Brooks said he had a "deliberative mind", but I'd attribute the deliberation to a absence of information: where other's knew the opening moves to a chess game, Obama was just trying to take the game in and figure it all out on the fly.

    In contrast, Hillary's appeal was less based on the Different-Distinctive-Unique factors of the Obama brand. It focused on policy performance characteristics. I would expect BHO "trendsetters" to drop off once the coolness factor of BHO wanes. Maybe when the next Mac gadget or videogame appears.

    Parent

    Thanks for this (none / 0) (#65)
    by andrewwm on Sun May 11, 2008 at 05:29:33 AM EST
    nice ageist comment and generalization.

    In many states Obama won all of the under 65 demographic. But apparently only old people are immune to falsely getting excited.

    Parent

    My argument was NOT (none / 0) (#89)
    by mg7505 on Sun May 11, 2008 at 02:08:14 PM EST
    that anyone is getting falsely excited. That is way different from my actual argument, which is that Obama is going to have a tough time reinvigorating the youth vote which (if you've been to an Obama rally) is fueled in BOTH young and old voters by a lot more than just his stance on issues.

    I know there are plenty of exceptions to my comment about students -- I am one myself, and the younger demographics that went for Hillary in PA etc are great examples too.

    Thanks for addressing the rest of my comment, which had nothing to do with age.

    Parent

    well bully for you. (5.00 / 3) (#58)
    by cpinva on Sun May 11, 2008 at 04:18:07 AM EST
    I am an Obama supporter

    how are things on planet unreality?

    i don't dislike sen. obama, i just find that, the more he opens his mouth in public, the more useless and unelectable he is for the GE. he'd almost do better not saying anything, to anyone, until the nov. election, should he be the dem. nominee.

    i guess i'm just underwhelmed by his intellect, wit and charisma. oh, and the fact that he's yet to produce a single original thought during the entire primary campaign. so i'm picky, sue me!

    "better to say nothing, and be thought an idiot, than to open your mouth, and remove all doubt."

    (beats me. someone smart, i think.)

    BTD, your first big mistake was wasting even 30 seconds reading a frank rich "column", just make the best use of it, line your bird cage with it.

    if it's next to maureen dowd's, you get a twofer.

    rich is, has been for many years now, and most likely will continue to be, a highly compensated idiot, much like his colleague, ms. dowd.

    that the nyt's continues to employee them, as anything other than mail room help, tells you the low level the gray lady has sunk to.

    Not all young people are creative class (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by kempis on Sun May 11, 2008 at 09:16:09 AM EST
    Rich and other pundits almost always seem to assume that every young person in this country is in college, is liberal, and is Scarlett Johansen or Will.I.Am. They seem to think the working class is about to die out when the Boomers expire. And they forget that we Boomers ourselves were incorrectly stereotyped as "hippies" in the 60s and 70s. (Well, some of us. I was a hippie, but most of my cousins weren't.) Diversity among young people is something that commentators seem perennially to fail to take into account.

    BTD: If Rich had dug a little deeper into the exit poll numbers, he might have realized that Hillary Clinton split white voters 18-29 with Obama in Ohio.

    Yep.

    The NY Times (none / 0) (#90)
    by denise on Sun May 11, 2008 at 07:35:56 PM EST
    assumes all of its readers are upper-middle class professionals and managers with high-brow tastes. Its editorials are liberal and it does report on the issues of the working class, but it acts as though they couldn't possibly read the paper.

    About 15 years ago they had a Style section article for young people about furnishing a first apartment . It advised that instead of getting the good sofa right away, make do with a cheap one with better fabric for a while and you could do it for less than $3000. I blew coffee out my nose.

    I've always detested Dowd. Even when, as in most of the past 7 years, she was targeting Bush, it was obvious she would just as easily do the same to anyone and everyone. She's a professional sneerer, the lowest possible use a person could make of writing talent.

    I've usually liked Rich, though. With his arts outlook he often has a different slant on political stories that I find interesting. I admit that I haven't been reading him lately, but I don't want to like the Obamaites who decided Paul Krugman was worthless just because he doesn't love their candidate.

    Parent

    Wait, what? (none / 0) (#1)
    by andgarden on Sat May 10, 2008 at 10:40:52 PM EST
    Voters under 30 (up by some 245,000 voters) accounted for 16 percent, up from 9 in 2004.
    What race in 2004 is he comparing this to? The primary? General?

    Primary to primary (5.00 / 3) (#2)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat May 10, 2008 at 10:42:54 PM EST
    I do not even get into the fact that the Ohio primary did not matter in 2004.

    Parent
    This is why the editor (5.00 / 8) (#3)
    by andgarden on Sat May 10, 2008 at 10:44:10 PM EST
    needs to be smarter than the writer.

    I had no idea how stupid Rich was until this primary season.

    MoDo, of course, is every bit as shallow and stupid as she seemed to be before.

    Parent

    She broke all records for inanaity tonight (5.00 / 4) (#5)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat May 10, 2008 at 10:45:58 PM EST
    Worst column ever.

    Parent
    Yup (5.00 / 2) (#8)
    by andgarden on Sat May 10, 2008 at 10:48:14 PM EST
    She should have just called it "Oh How I Want to Punish Hillary Clinton."

    It was one of the most deranged rants I've ever read. It barely made any sense.

    Parent

    Yes, but at least she got the (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by Rhouse on Sun May 11, 2008 at 12:14:04 AM EST
    "Fatal Attraction" meme.  What is it with these people and that movie?

    Parent
    If I read it while drinking wine (5.00 / 2) (#9)
    by nycstray on Sat May 10, 2008 at 10:48:31 PM EST
    will I think it's funny?

    Parent
    No (5.00 / 5) (#11)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat May 10, 2008 at 10:54:09 PM EST
    Thanks! (5.00 / 2) (#12)
    by nycstray on Sat May 10, 2008 at 10:54:47 PM EST
    How do you do that (none / 0) (#15)
    by bjorn on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:02:32 PM EST
    I just went to NY Times, it does not seem to be posted yet..how do you guys get it so early?

    Parent
    RSS (none / 0) (#17)
    by andgarden on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:13:38 PM EST
    If you must, here it is.

    Parent
    thanks, (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by bjorn on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:25:38 PM EST
    you were right, I stopped reading after the second paragraph!

    Parent
    I followed the (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by kenoshaMarge on Sun May 11, 2008 at 05:19:32 AM EST
    link too. I'll be back after I go take a bath.

    Parent
    First sentence for me.... (none / 0) (#69)
    by Fabian on Sun May 11, 2008 at 07:18:09 AM EST
    "ice picks" was enough for me.

    I'm sure she'll be buried in fan mail from the HHers.

    Parent

    That's a profound comment, andgarden (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by lambert on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:56:01 PM EST
    Let us remember that the editors assign the stories,  manage the reporters, control story placement, and write the headlines.

    What does that tell you?

    That they are much more important than the writers.

    Unfortunately, the editors are much harder to get at, and the reporters are much easier targets. Thogh some of them, for example Judy "Kneepads" Miller, richly deserve their fates.

    Parent

    On the op-ed page (5.00 / 4) (#30)
    by andgarden on Sun May 11, 2008 at 12:08:47 AM EST
    the columnists supposedly have free reign, but their editors need to be able to challenge assumptions, faulty premises, and daffy thinking.

    The Times is either incapable of, or has given up on, doing these basic things for the opinion columnists. I wonder if Clark Hoyt has anything to say about how profoundly stupid this column is?

    Parent

    It used to be...until (5.00 / 2) (#35)
    by Stellaaa on Sun May 11, 2008 at 12:39:42 AM EST
    Corporatism took over all the media.  Professional standards are gone.  It's all about "sales", "key demographics".  It's obvious, Obama, offers the right "key demographic".  They are all seeing $$ signs in front.  They will not change to McCain.  They want the Obama demographic, the demographic that has not bought into reading newspapers, magazines and tv news.  Today, it totally clicked for me.  Who will give traction?  Who will create buyers subscribers?   That is all that matters.  

    Parent
    Very interesting point on the media and Obama... (none / 0) (#36)
    by CK MacLeod on Sun May 11, 2008 at 12:51:38 AM EST
    On first glance, some will reject it, but personal economic interest has a way of affecting behavior over time, with or without those affected recognizing it.  It would be all the more true for the MSM during a time of economic crisis.

    Where you stand depends upon where you sit, as I think Brecht put it.  

    Parent

    Iowa: watching MSNBC (5.00 / 5) (#37)
    by Stellaaa on Sun May 11, 2008 at 12:59:29 AM EST
    Tweety, we all make fun of him, but he made a comment that stuck with me .  I cannot remember the exact words.  When he saw Obama winning, he did a throw away comment about watching the ratings go up.  How this will make the network happy.  I am sorry I do not remember the comment exactly, I remember the chill I got.  But now I see it unraveling.  From the NYTimes, to Air Ameririca, the Networks, the magazines, all of them, they have been looking for the key to the demographic.  And bam, Obama, delivers the demographic to the corporations.  Fox already has is it's base, the others were struggling.  Now they have it.  Olberman all those guys deliver.  

    The Movement is brought to you by the following sponsors:  NBC, CBS, MSNBC, CNN, Air America, Warner etc.  Look at all the money they got from the tv ads.  Axelrod knows his job.  

    Parent

    Please don't take this wrong... (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by CK MacLeod on Sun May 11, 2008 at 01:22:01 AM EST
    ...because I mean it in the nicest way:  That's something that O'Reilly and Limbaugh and some not as famous right-wing radio and internet types could run on for weeks... and may soon be doing.  

    I'm still not 100% up to date on the intricacies of Obama's internet fundraising (i.e., hype vs reality), but it may goes to a partly overlapping, parallel point.  2 million or however many small contributors sounds like a huge number, and it's impressive by historical standards and certainly a more "public" form of campaign financing than traditional big donor bundling, but it's still just a teeny-tiny demographic sliver, an alternative pseudo-elite, if you will - the high disposable income stratum, aka well-off young people, for whom hitting the 1-click button for $25-50 is second nature.  And they can keep on repeating the behavior month after month, if they choose to, without ever getting near individual limits.  

    Parent

    I don't know if I understand your point (5.00 / 4) (#43)
    by Stellaaa on Sun May 11, 2008 at 01:35:43 AM EST
    I understand the contributors racket. MSM has been trying to find a way to continue their legitimacy.  The "key demographic", people between 18-35, I think, I may be wrong, are desired.  They have not been able to hook them into watching news and reading news.  My contention is that the MSM is looking to it's future, capturing the demographic.  Hillary nor McCain will deliver that demographic.  Obama candidacy and presidency will.  Therefore, the leg tingling, the positive coverage, the one sided commentary.  At no time did they do any real work to find out who Obama is etc, it's embedded journalism and what plays to the "key demographic".  

    Women of that certain age, low income and working class whites in certain states, older people are not the demographic that will increase ratings.  I am not saying that they have it right, it's how they perceive it.

    They look at the frenzy on the blogs, the chatter, the hits on you tube, the ratings and the just are drooling at the potential, something they thought was dead.  So, why would they want to do any real journalism?    

    Parent

    the point about the fundraising... (5.00 / 4) (#44)
    by CK MacLeod on Sun May 11, 2008 at 01:59:42 AM EST
    ...is that the reason that demographic is referred to as a key demographic is that it's considered highly desirable to advertisers.  As I understand it, people in that demo spend a lot on consumer items relative to their actual incomes.  In relation to the fundraising numbers, you might say that Obama has become a youth fashion accessory (only a fraction of the demo would have to kick in to create his campaign war chest).  It would be telling - though not essential to your larger point - if MSNBC and others' advertisers have been skewing younger in that way, too.  

    I'm going to think about this one and see how it looks to me tomorrow.  

    Parent

    They have been courting and (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by Stellaaa on Sun May 11, 2008 at 02:06:28 AM EST
    been terrified at the future.  What I am saying is they got them hooked--at least they think they have.  

    Parent
    As one of those small $ doners (none / 0) (#51)
    by independent thinker on Sun May 11, 2008 at 03:27:29 AM EST
    I am slightly offended at being called an elite for whom hitting the submit button is somehow an automatic impulse. I do not make a lot of money and I am very careful with the dollars I have. Further, I thought a great deal about it before donating to Obama. My donations of $25 to $50 matter a great deal to me...and I suspect that a lot of other Obama supporters feel the same way.

    Do you also believe that Clinton backers who donate $25-$50 over the internet are elites? I doubt it.

    The fact that millions of ordinary people have contributed small amounts to Obama's campaign is very significant and certainly not an act of elitism.

    Parent

    It was the Obama campaign who... (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by CK MacLeod on Sun May 11, 2008 at 10:03:10 AM EST
    ...when questioned about his apparent flip-flop on accepting public financing, suggested that their small donors represented an alternative form of "public" financing.  

    I have no doubt that most people who make a donations feel very committed to it, but the idea that 2 million small donors represents "the public" in a country of 300+ million is in my opinion offensive to a democratic sensibility.  They're inarguably broader than the kind of labor and industry bigwigs called on to finance campaigns of earlier eras, but they're not representative of the entire country:  They're still a "special interest," not "the public."  

    I called them a pseudo-elite, a term which I suppose could also be taken as insulting, but the point remains that they will generally reflect a certain demographic profile, one which the Obama campaign is very aware of, thus also the proportionally much greater investment of the campaign in web advertisements.  In this expert, revolutionary exploitation of the internet, elements of which were also seen in the Ron Paul campaign, I consider them the Obama-ites to be the true heirs to Howard Dean, having taken Dean's net-movement a step further.

    As for Stellaa's insight, and for other comments here, it's clear that the typical Obama person will on average be much more comfortable with the internet, including with making payments (or donations) over the web via credit card or other account - something that many older and working class voters, for instance, will be very reluctant is not completely unable to do.  These are the same people who occupy the "key demo" that, as Stellaa rightly observed, have the MSM has increasingly feared it had lost.

    BTW, Stellaa - if you're still reading here - have you considered blogging about your thoughts on this subject?  If I mention it to other people, I'd like to be able to link and credit you.

    Parent

    I wonder if they would say the Lakers won (none / 0) (#42)
    by felizarte on Sun May 11, 2008 at 01:31:37 AM EST
    if the disparity between the way Fox covers the Dem. primary and that of MSNBC and CNN has anything to do with the business competition between Murdoch and the other two networks.

    Parent
    Thanks for the tip - LexusNexus (none / 0) (#59)
    by catfish on Sun May 11, 2008 at 04:43:01 AM EST
    do they do TV transcripts? We can find the clip. Oh yes. We will find the clip.

    Parent
    Yes. (none / 0) (#70)
    by Fabian on Sun May 11, 2008 at 07:27:12 AM EST
    As the main shopper of my household, I am one key demographic.

    However, I am not THE demographic.  I am too stolid, too slow, too resistant to the lure of advertising.  I don't buy based on image.  I don't go out often.  Extra money gets sunk into the house, not spent on entertainment and gadgets.

    Obama can deliver the young, impulsive, frivolous consumers and the wealthier "creative class".

    So for advertisers, Obama is where it's at!  Especially since Obama sinks so much money into advertising.  For advertisers it's a win/win/win scenario.

    Money rules.

    Parent

    Not So Fast (none / 0) (#76)
    by glyn on Sun May 11, 2008 at 08:57:11 AM EST
     Facts are facts,Obama has some how been painted as a worldly know it all or Soothsayer.A Profit of sorts on the World Stage.His Campaign has went out of the way(at times)to sell his Diplomatic skills to be superior to Hillarys and McCains.In doing this we are to be dooped into believing he is a new version of The Pope.I dont doubt for a minute this scares a lot of people.His assumptions are if he flies into Tehran and smiles and waves to the crowd,the IDIOT overthere will swoon to his presence.The Iranian Tird will love him and promise not to Nuke anybody and maybe stop Killing our young men and women in Iraq.Works for me,I feel better already.Are we even sure he has a Passport? The problem he has with"NEW VOTERS"turning out in the Primaries,especially among 24 and under crowd is by November they will be wore out,confused and on to the next big thing.Most"OLD VOTERS" are more Seasoned.Less likely to be swooned by meer sight and smooth words covered in Choclate and Cherry toppings.Right now Obama has pulled out very few BIG WINS.He has failed to put away a Fo who has a popularity rating slightly above Satans.If Obama is a profit he probably will turn out to be a False One.Sort of the new Version of Jimmy "THE DUNCE" CARTER.

    Parent
    MoDo (none / 0) (#79)
    by chrisvee on Sun May 11, 2008 at 09:14:53 AM EST
    This column is simply awful and incredibly offensive.

    So now we've moved from Fatal Attraction to Basic Instinct?  IIRC, I think it was Sharon Stone's character that wielded an ice pick.  Is the intention to inject some homophobia into the conversation as well or is this some sly reference to rumors about Senator Clinton's sexuality?  And is SLOTUS supposed to be some type of funny take on calling President Clinton sexually promiscuous? She even explicitly made the charge that Hillary has 'unmanned' Obama.

    This column -- heck, this primary season -- is like a case study for Women Studies 101.  I guess I'll have to try out my google skills but I doubt that people were writing about Kerry needing to punish Edwards or Dean as the 2004 primary concluded. Perhaps the media should just start shouting 'drown the witch' and stop being so coy about it.

    I can't believe this column was published in the NYT.

    Parent

    Apples and oranges either way (5.00 / 3) (#7)
    by ineedalife on Sat May 10, 2008 at 10:46:05 PM EST
    It doesn't matter. The primary wasn't competitive in 2004 so the comparison isn't valid. And the comparing primary and general demographics are even less valid.

    Parent
    Exactly (5.00 / 2) (#10)
    by andgarden on Sat May 10, 2008 at 10:49:08 PM EST
    NYT electoral map for Obama & McCain (none / 0) (#67)
    by Josey on Sun May 11, 2008 at 06:28:09 AM EST
    I Have Given Up On Rich Using Actualy Facts (none / 0) (#21)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:29:16 PM EST
    anymore...anything is allowable in his book as long as it makes The Clintons look bad.  To think I used to enjoy his columns and Dowd's too.  I swear Dowd acts like a woman scorned.  

    Rich, Cohen are bandwagon hoppers (5.00 / 2) (#62)
    by catfish on Sun May 11, 2008 at 05:04:04 AM EST
    They both ridiculed Al Gore for sighing and "little lies"? Both cheered the Iraq War. Both defended Imus and tore into James Frey on Oprah's couch.

    Parent
    now that you mention it! (none / 0) (#23)
    by hellothere on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:39:36 PM EST
    one of the few columns i really enjoyed by her was about big dog when he left office. it is done in a snark manner. there she is and now HE is gone. she keeps thinking about him; what to do, what to do. she sees that it is obcession of course. the msm at that time did have issues that way. anyway she gives in and drives to his new home in new york looking for him. then she decides to use a hamburger to lure him out. maybe this doesn't sound funny, but when she wrote it, it was.

    Parent
    Let's move on. (none / 0) (#25)
    by lyzurgyk on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:50:23 PM EST
    I agree Obama has demographic disadvantages.  Hillary was my preference.  I'm not happy with a lot of things about this campaign but Obama has earned the nomination - for better or worse.  

    Shouldn't we be moving past Obama - Clinton?

    No, he hasnt (5.00 / 2) (#28)
    by lambert on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:58:00 PM EST
    "earned the nomination."

    And some might say, given disenfranchising two states, plus caucus shenanigains, "earned" "the nomination."

    Parent

    Yes he has. (none / 0) (#31)
    by lyzurgyk on Sun May 11, 2008 at 12:09:33 AM EST

    Under these rules this year.   Florida and Michigan do not put Hillary on top.  Obama will be the candidate.  

    All I know is that in 2004, I preferred John Kerry because I thought goofy Howard Dean was unelectable.   That didn't work out too well.   Maybe Howard would have won.

    This year I am worried about the electability of Obama.  But there is an enthusiasm for him that Hillary can not equal.   Maybe that is what matters most.   I'm willing to stand in his corner.

    Parent

    Forgive me folks, (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by Rhouse on Sun May 11, 2008 at 12:18:24 AM EST
    but just make sure you're facing the walls.
    (drummer misses rim-shot)

    Parent
    Please stop with the caucus bashing. (none / 0) (#55)
    by independent thinker on Sun May 11, 2008 at 03:50:00 AM EST
    Look, some states have been holding caucuses for many many years. Clinton knew it. Obama knew it. Everyone knew it. Everyone knew how caucuses work. The fact that Obama was smarter about organizing in caucus states does not mean "shenanigains" took place. The simple truth is that Obama had a better ground game in these states. Period. Just like Clinton was able to rally more voters to her in certain primaries like Ohio and Pennsylvania.

    And by the way...I agree that Obama has not earned the nomination yet.

    But I have to say that everyone agreed to the rules before the campaign got started. Those rules stated that only four states could hold their primary or caucus in January. Two state legislatures and their governors chose to violate those rules. Would I prefer that they hadn't done so? Of course. But the reality is that the Democratic Party has to be able enforce its rules otherwise we have chaos.

    Parent

    The problem is the demographics (5.00 / 2) (#60)
    by tnjen on Sun May 11, 2008 at 04:46:21 AM EST
    ...reveal that it had little to do with organization and everything to do with the voters that Obama and Clinton attract. When you look at who attends caucuses and has the time and ability to do so and compare it to the demos it's obvious what Obama's advantage really was. It also becomes apparent that caucuses are inherently unfair to both candidates and voters in that they advantage certain voters and candidates that appeal to those voters. If caucuses were used in real elections, I firmly believe most of them (they vary in format) would be declared illegal under federal law because they disenfranchise and discriminate against so many different types of voters.

    Parent
    He hasn't earned it yet. (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by independent thinker on Sun May 11, 2008 at 03:37:51 AM EST
    I'm an Obama supporter and even I have to say that this statement is false. Until one of the candidates reaches 2025 delegates this is still a contested primary.

    Clinton has every right to continue campaigning. My hope is that she will turn her attention to McCain...from my perspective that would be far more effective in convincing me why she is the better GE candidate.

    Parent

    I don't think I've (none / 0) (#29)
    by frankly0 on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:59:53 PM EST
    seen this exit poll summary after the NC and IN primaries discussed here at TalkLeft (or on any other blog,for that matter), but it shows how real the Wright effect really was. (My apologies if it's already been posted and discussed).

    No the newspaper got it wrong (none / 0) (#64)
    by andrewwm on Sun May 11, 2008 at 05:26:49 AM EST
    ...what a shock. It's entirely likely that the causal process went being a Clinton supporter->finding Rev. Wright a big issue.

    The thing is, in like-for-like demographic comparisons (i.e. including wealth, age demographics), Obama performed about the same in NC and IN as he did in VA and OH.

    Essentially, what it tells us is that demographics have ruled this race since the beginning. All the media bloviating about one story or another never really changed the basic fundamentals of the race. There never was any momentum.

    In the end, the demographic groups supporting Obama 1) turned out in larger numbers than they historically have and 2) ended up being slightly larger than Clinton demographics

    Parent

    No in VA he di extremely well (none / 0) (#85)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun May 11, 2008 at 11:57:19 AM EST
    If Obama can turn in VA and WI performances. he will win easily in November.

    Parent
    You seem to be obsessed with this whole (none / 0) (#46)
    by Seth90212 on Sun May 11, 2008 at 02:25:04 AM EST
    "white voter" issue. Is your argument that Obama cannot win due to white voter bias? Or is your argument that Obama must do more to appeal to white voters? If so, how do you propose he do that? What can he do that he hasn't already done?

    be human to his opponent and her supporters.... (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by jeffhas on Sun May 11, 2008 at 02:46:06 AM EST
    then, by example, perhaps his supporters will do the same.

    Parent
    Her supporters? (none / 0) (#54)
    by Seth90212 on Sun May 11, 2008 at 03:43:35 AM EST
    She does not have a block white vote. He too has millions of white voters and supporters. Moreover, outside of this little corner of the universe the consensus is that he has been vastly more "human" to her than she has been to him. In the real world, even her voters concede in exit polls that she has been vastly more responsible for the negativity and bad blood than he has. It's doubtful that the posters here are right the the rest of the world is wrong.

    Parent
    This tone does nothing to (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by independent thinker on Sun May 11, 2008 at 03:58:35 AM EST
    bring people together.

    I am an Obama supporter, but I have to say that even if your analysis were true, saying it so blatently here does nothing to unify the party.

    The time has come for us to stop pointing the finger(at least at fellow Dems). True, we don't have a nominee yet, so the campaign continues, but that doesn't mean we have to continue pummeling each other.

    Parent

    Ah! Seth.... (none / 0) (#68)
    by magisterludi on Sun May 11, 2008 at 06:45:49 AM EST
    A piece of work, eh?

    Parent
    This little corner of the universe? (5.00 / 3) (#66)
    by kenoshaMarge on Sun May 11, 2008 at 05:36:10 AM EST
    Because only here do people think that "he" has been the most negative?

    There are numerous blogs where this is discussed on a daily basis. There are many new blogs where people can discuss politics without having blogger boyz and their infantile insults towards women intrude on civil discourse.

    And there are millions of Clinton supporters who have seen the constant media bashing of their candidate, the misogynistic media and Obama supporters and the fact that everything Hillary says is twisted to seem other that what it is and everything Obama says is explained (W.O.R. M.) away.

    Unity will perhaps be achieved with some Clinton supporters if and when Obama gets to the 220? number but for many of us, so long as people like you insist on continuing to insult us and our candidate, and Obama is silent about it, there will be no unification. You would do your candidate the best service at this point by just being quiet. You are only annoying the Clinton supporters here and convincing no one.

    Parent

    How many states violated the DNC rules? (none / 0) (#72)
    by Saul on Sun May 11, 2008 at 07:49:27 AM EST
    I heard that there were two other states besides MI and FL that violated the DNC rule of early primaries but were not penalized.  Any truth to this? If so what are the facts?  If true why the double standard?

    I believe there were three other states (none / 0) (#81)
    by kayla on Sun May 11, 2008 at 09:47:25 AM EST
    that moved their dates up, but they were not penalized.  BTD made a couple posts about this about a month ago.

    Here and here.

    Parent



    well this articke (none / 0) (#75)
    by Katherine Graham Cracker on Sun May 11, 2008 at 08:52:49 AM EST
    This is funny (none / 0) (#84)
    by lilburro on Sun May 11, 2008 at 11:10:39 AM EST
    Gallup last week found that after the Wright circus Mr. Obama's white support in a matchup against Mr. McCain is still no worse than John Kerry's against President Bush in 2004.

    Oh, hooray!  Now I feel good!  Good call by BTD to see this talking point coming.

    And OFB, take note:

    Guess what: there are racists in America and, yes, the occasional rubes (even among Obama voters). Some of them may reside in Indiana, which hasn't voted for a national Democratic ticket since 1964. But there are many more white working-class voters, both Clinton and Obama supporters, who prefer Democratic policies after seven years of G.O.P. failure. And there is little evidence to suggest that there are enough racists of any class in America, let alone in swing states, to determine the results come fall.

    Is it possible that Clinton's argument about white working class voters is more nuanced than "THEY ARE RACISTS.  LET ME WIN"?  Even Frank Rich says there are not enough racists in America to screw this up.  However, if the DNC screws over the voters who we say are racists, then yes, we might actually screw this up.