So while I've been a longtime skeptic of Obama's chances to win Montana come November, I wanted to look a bit deeper into the R2K numbers from Daily Kos on the race. That poll showed McCain winning the state by 13.
In fact, it even showed McCain winning the youth vote in Montana by 5.
So I went to some national polling to look at how the white youth vote is going elsewhere to try to get a handle on whether it would make sense for Montana youth to be going McCain (the under 30 vote in Montana is probably about 90% white, a bit more diverse than the state as a whole, but not much).
So I checked out Rock the Vote's latest polling. They have white youth going Obama 48-36. Democracy Corps has slightly older numbers that show white youth going Obama by the wider margin of 46-45.
Both of the polling firms in question are Democratic firms, but they are very respected Democratic firms. How to account for such disparity? While subsamples have higher margins of error, so that could be part of it.
But keeping in mind that the Montana youth vote is 90% white, is it likely that youth in Montana are really going more for McCain than white youth nationally? I'd doubt it. Especially since Montana's white population tends to be more big-D Democratic than whites nationally (I think this is typical of homogenous white states).
Now that homogeneity could also mean that we're seeing a racial effect here. This isn't a Bradley effect, mind you, it's people being openly racialized in their voting.
All that said, I think this subsample throws some questions on the 13 point margin.
Bottom line in my book:
I don't think Obama is really down 13 in Montana.
I also still think McCain ultimately wins Montana.
Take all of this with a grain of salt because subsamples are just that -- subsamples.
(Ah, voter registration! Forget for a moment about which party has the advantage -- isn't it cool so many new voters are turning out for this election? - promoted by Jay Stevens)
There's a good piece in the GAZ today about voter registration and what each Party is doing. Election officials are saying there are 36,000 new folks on the rolls, primarily from Democratic efforts.
"We're getting about 100 a day from the Obama campaign," said Barb Cox, Yellowstone County's election clerk. "We might get 50 to 100 a week from the Republican Party."
Other urban counties across the state are seeing similar streams of newly registered voters. Charlotte Mills, Gallatin County clerk and recorder in Bozeman, said her office has had days of 100 registrations but also waves of new registrations tied mostly to Democratic political functions at Montana State University.
But don't worry...the Big Brains over at the State GOP have the situation under control (or at least the spin):
But low volume isn't a concern for the Republicans, said Jake Eaton, spokesman for the Montana GOP. Democrats have traditionally relied on man-on-the-street registrations that haven't necessarily yielded positive results at the polls, Eaton said. Republicans are much more calculated in who they sign up.
I guess they're changing their tune from earlier this month when the Chairman of the MT GOP told New West:
Iverson claims about half of the thousands of new voters for his party.
Although Governor Schweitzer's name has been overshadowed as a potential running mate in recent weeks by the likes of Biden, Kaine, and Sebelius--in politics you never know.
For Obama a gun-loving populist from the West who knows energy policy like the back of his had and never met a powerful, corporate special interest he did not want to take down might be a darn good pick.
(Nice write-up of yet another DCer trying to make "sense" of Montana. - promoted by Jay Stevens)
Unlike in Washington D.C....
Well, The Denver Post put out an interesting analysis of the general campaign's battle for western states. The Post's Karen Crummy, had a pretty "crummy" write up about the state of Montana's electoral and political campaigns in her article today, "Montana: Under the gun on many conservative issues", part of a five article series.
Let's start with "Political Identity Crisis" for $200. I thought that maybe we could continue the theme of exploring our perceptions of just where, on the political spectrum, do we believe our state, our democrats, and ourselves lie, what with all the talk of leftists, progressives, centrists, and Montana dems "walking, talking and acting like republicans." And of course, how the national press sees how the battleground state of Montana is shaping up, what with Obama seemingly blowing in the wind on the issues as of late.
Nothing like challenging our own notions of political identity and loyalty, which seem to have generated so much chatter here at LitW lately. ;-)
Crummy starts off with the assertion that Montana is a one trick pony:
"In Montana, where "opening day" refers to the beginning of hunting season rather than baseball, a candidate's political survival usually hinges on one issue: guns.
A candidate's position on gun rights is the Montana entrance exam. Answer correctly and you can move on to discuss other issues. Give the wrong answer and most voters don't want to hear what else you have to say."
Amidst the obligatory "fair and balanced" sprinkling of quotes from Erick Iverson, Jim Lopach and Brian Schweitzer she gets around to the meat of her story, and that is that Montana is cycling back to voting for democratic candidates, and takes a stab at trying to define why we might do so in the presidential campaign...
(JC addresses a question that's been bouncing around in my head the last few days, after moves by Obama to tack to the "center." He opines we can't really do anything about it...but I'm not so sure. I'll have some thoughts this weekend... - promoted by Jay Stevens)
"Warning: this is one of those brutally frank posts that may well piss you off. Sorry about that"
Given the tenor of several recent diaries here at LitW, I thought it would be a good time to reflect on the issue of accountability during a general election. Having run by Lux's article, and another, "The Obama Problem" at HuffPo by Jason Rosenbaum, I thought I'd throw some of their ideas out to see what people here think. And we haven't had a real barn-burner comment love-fest in what, 2-3 days since Wulfgar's "Tepid" diary hit the front page?
So instead of attacking the poster or commenters (me, Jay, Anna, or Mark, or Wulfgar...), let's go at the issue straight up. It's become obvious to progressives and the left that Obama has been moving to the right, and is now campaigning with many centrist positions. And we "Obamabots" have been accused of being delusional because we can't see what is truly happening in the general election.
Rest assured, objective readers, that many Obama supporters the world over can see what is happening, and offer our critiques of his moves, as opposed to resorting to ad hominem "accountability" threats. I had this intuitive notion that holding a general candidate accountable for things like press releases and campaign PR babble was just pissing in the wind. Accountability needs to be reserved for the realm of actions, not postures. Once the election is over, and the candidate has won, then the whole world changes (I'm not talkin' 'bout Obama's "change" agenda here). Reality sets in, the glamor and bubble of electoral politics is burst, and it is time for everybody to get to work--whatever that may be, and make the best out of the next 4 years.
(Barrett Kaiser wishes his soon-to-depart supervisor some good luck in his new endeavors. - promoted by Matt Singer)
U.S. Sen. Max Baucus:
"I can't put into words just how proud I am of Jim Messina and how lucky my friend Barack Obama is to have him. There are few people on the planet with Jim's talent, quick intellect, and motivational qualities. To know Jim is love him - and we all do. We are proud to offer one of Montana's finest sons to help change this country."
Hundreds [maybe thousands] of Missoula supporters for Senator Barack Obama will gather at Caras Park on Saturday, May 31 from 2-5pm to inspire the community for the June 3rd Primary. The entire Missoula community is invited to attend. There will be good food, live music, games for kids, short talks, and lots of positive fun for the whole family!!!
The event kicks off with a Sidewalk Parade at 1:30pm. Assemble at XXX's for festive musical procession to Caras Park, featuring giant puppets, bag pipes, juggling, drumming and Radical Cheerleaders.
The rally will feature an introduction by Mayor John Engen. That will be followed up by performances featuring the Full Grown Men, drumming and African dance, the Odyssey Band, the Gay Men's and Women's Choir, and more. There will be youth basketball and other speakers from the Missoula community.
Bring a tee-shirt, and get it screenprinted with an Obama design.
Obama's exciting, inspiring appearance in Missoula is still ringing in our hearts and minds. This community rally, Up With Obama, is a celebration of Missoula's important role in the state's primary election.
Yes We Can. We can elect Obama for President! We need to chip in with everything we can, and we can have fun doing it! Let's do our part in Missoula to sign, seal, and deliver Barack Obama for the Democratic nomination!
(It looks like our fun is just beginning. And think -- it could be Montana's young voters that decide who the next president will be. - promoted by Jay Stevens)
Fivethirtyeight.com had an interesting tidbit today. In its article, Can Obama Clinch on June 3rd?" they make the case that given a rules committee vote on how the FL and MI delegates get allocated, that the final pledged delegate victory could be right here, and making the case for him declaring victory in Montana:
"Obama might have another opportunity to declare victory on June 3rd, when South Dakota and Montana conclude the primary calendar. The conditions for doing so are otherwise pretty favorable. He is likely to achieve victory in one or both of these states (his worst case scenario is probably losing one of them -- more likely South Dakota -- by a small margin).
And while Obama could conceivably hold a victory rally anywhere, there is a sound argument for doing so in Montana, a potentially competitive state that symbolizes the Democrats' 50-state strategy (think Brian Schweitzer and John Tester) and their hopes to expand the electoral map in November. But will the math be there to make Montana the state that puts Obama over the top?"
Montana putting the final delegates into Obama's column and holding a victory speech here? Maybe in Missoula Montana?!!! Only in our wildest dreams. Denny Rehberg, get your coat, you're going home.
(Isn't journalism done well a thing of beauty? - promoted by Jay Stevens)
Last night's interview of Jeremiah Wright by Bill Moyers was fascinating. So much so, that after watching the dvr recording of it, instead of deleting it, I decided to save it to show to my daughter, and to other people who might be interested, or to watch it again.
It wasn't what I expected. Moyers gracefully allowed Jeremiah Wright to unveil himself in front of a national audience. Gone were the gotcha moments and sound bite-seeking furies of so many other interviews we've seen through this campaign cycle. Moyers skillfully worked Wright's history, the history of black America, and current political events together with religious history to build the context, so painfully absent in today's main stream media, needed to understand Wright's remarks. And with that we begin to understand not only Barack Obama's association with Rev. Wright, but we take another step forward in the discussion on race that Obama began with his speech in Philadelphia.
For any who want to discuss the Wright affair, this show is a must watch. Anytime anybody wants to point to Wright's remarks as a reason to denigrate Obama, I will say: "have you seen Wright's interview with Moyer where he builds the context for his statements?" And if they say no, or refuse, then there is little to talk about. I don't know how I can convey the subtleties and nuances of the Moyers/Wright interview to people who have no knowledge of the black church, prophetic preaching, or liberation theology.
Now if only we could get other interviewers and reporters to follow Moyers' lead. And I'd love to see Moyers do a followup on this story with Barack Obama.
Well, I had been holding out the slim possibility that Clinton would only narrowly win PA or that Obama would win it outright -- either possibility may have meant a Clinton withdrawal from the campaign.
Instead, Clinton wins and likely by a healthy margin. Any chance that this race was gonna slow down is now gone. Instead, the field staff in PA are likely to be pulled out and reassigned to other efforts -- meaning we're about to see an influx of even more people working these campaigns.
(Here's a PSA for those wishing to help out the Obama campaign for the primary and beyond. Volunteers are what make the candidacy happen. If you're interested, check it out.
Lest this site appear completely biased, Clinton volunteers are encouraged to post about opportunities for volunteering for Hillary. - promoted by Jay Stevens)
Missoula Camp Obama a success and quite the experience.
The Montana Obama Campaign held Camp Obama, an intensive 2 day/20 hour hands on grass-roots volunter training last Saturday and Sunday in Missoula, Great Falls and Billings.
I attended the Missoula camp with approximately 40 other Obama supporters. People were there from Missoula, Ravali, Silverbow, Beaverhead and Lake Counties.
The single largest demographic in attendance were women over 45, although there were men and women of every age, from a 17 year old high school student to college and post college age people to male senior citizens as well.
The training covered goals and methods of community organizing, and the tools to accomplish that.
One of the themes I heard over and over from people attending was that it's time for ordinary citizens to become involved in the process, not to rely on our leaders to change things for the better, but to rely on ourselves to take back our country, our state, our communities, our politics, our future.
We were there at camp because we want Barack to be the next president of the US certainly, but more importantly, we were there because we wanted to be part of the process of positive change, for this campaign and beyond.
I'm a single dad in my 50's. I have 3 kids, one in elementary and two in middle school. I'm busy in my kids school, Scouting, sports, music, and all the activities raising children entails. I don't have tons of free time, but this is important. It's important to come together with our neighbors, to talk about our dreams and vision for our country, our state, and our communities. And it's important to do something to make them so. It's too important in fact to leave it up to any candidate, for any office.
If anyone reading this diary would like to become involved in changing the direction of our country, state, or community, please join us. We invite everyone who wants to work with us to get involved. Whether it's an hour or two or more, it's important. This isn't Obama's campaign, it's our campaign and it can be your campaign as well. Go to www.barackobama.com/ and learn how you can be the change you are waiting for. Or contact your nearest Obama for America campaign office in Missoula, Helena, Bozeman, Great Falls, or Billings. And be sure to get registered to vote if you aren't already and vote early/absentee, or vote on June 3rd.
We regret to inform you that the proposed Democratic Presidential Debate scheduled for April 27 has been cancelled due to time constraints and logistical issues associated with such a large, national event.
You have shown tremendous passion and interest in being a part of history as Democrats are poised this year to elect the first female or African-American President. However, there were also growing concerns about what another debate would do to party unity. (emphasis added)
We hope your interest in the North Carolina Democratic Party will not end with the cancellation of the debate.
At last, some democrats with some sense!
What would be even better, would be for the somebody like the Montana Conservation Voters to offer to sponsor a presidential debate here in Montana before the primary here. They could promise no gotcha questions, and just ask questions relevant to the west, like:
1) coal development & energy policy
2) the wilderness debate and roadless designations, restorations issues
3) fire fighting policy
4) endangered species and wildlife issues (wolf, grizzly, bison)
5) National park management
6) tribal issues
7) farm & ranching policy
8) hardrock mining
While maybe not a made-for-primetime national ABCNews gotcha debate special, it would be great for the west. What do we really know about Obama and Clinton's stances on these and other issues?
Robert Reich came out and endorsed Barack Obama today on his blog. His explanation of his moves is a very telling story that likely is being played out in many Democratic heavy's heads right about now. It seems like Clinton's campaign tactics are backfiring in a big way.
"She's an old friend," Reich said, "I've known her 40 years. I was absolutely dead set against getting into the whole endorsement thing. I've struggled with it. I've not wanted to do it. Out of loyalty to her, I just felt it would be inappropriate."
So what's changed? I asked Reich.
"I saw the ads" - the negative man-on-street commercials that the Clinton campaign put up in Pennsylvania in the wake of Obama's bitter/cling comments a week ago - "and I was appalled, frankly. I thought it represented the nadir of mean-spirited, negative politics. And also of the politics of distraction, of gotcha politics. It's the worst of all worlds. We have three terrible traditions that we've developed in American campaigns. One is outright meanness and negativity. The second is taking out of context something your opponent said, maybe inartfully, and blowing it up into something your opponent doesn't possibly believe and doesn't possibly represent. And third is a kind of tradition of distraction, of getting off the big subject with sideshows that have nothing to do with what matters. And these three aspects of the old politics I've seen growing in Hillary's campaign. And I've come to the point, after seeing those ads, where I can't in good conscience not say out loud what I believe about who should be president. Those ads are nothing but Republicanism. They're lending legitimacy to a Republican message that's wrong to begin with, and they harken back to the past 20 years of demagoguery on guns and religion. It's old politics at its worst - and old Republican politics, not even old Democratic politics. It's just so deeply cynical.""
Today Robert Creamer tackled the question about Obama's electability vs. Clinton's. In a very reasoned manner, he applied his experience with dem campaign high-intensity field programs to Clinton's assertion that her ability to win the big states--and thus hypothetically their electoral votes in the genera election--doesn't hold water.
He asserts the following:
Examples abound where the winner of a primary is not the stronger candidate to win a general election. Why? Because the voters who affect the outcomes of general elections are largely different people from those who affect the outcomes of primaries.
He then follows up with a description of who the deciding voters can be:
In general elections, only two groups of people affect the outcome. First are persuadable voters, who always vote in generals, but are switch-hitters. They vote for Republicans in one election and Democrats in the next. And they rarely vote in primaries.
The other group is mobilizable voters. Democratic mobilizables would vote Democratic, but have to be motivated to go to the polls. Sometimes these mobilizable voters can be motivated to vote in a particularly exciting primary. But most don't vote in primaries -- and only rarely in general elections.
He goes on to say that an inspirational candidate (like Obama) can motivate both these voter groups to turn out and vote for him. While other candidates can attract one or the other--persuadables focus on the candidate's qualities, mobilizable voters on the other hand are disengaged, and need to be feel empowered to turn out and vote--Obama is a rare politician that can do both.
Barack Obama's ability to inspire is the quality that makes him such an electable general election candidate. Most candidates are really successful either at convincing persuadables, or motivating mobilizables. Barack Obama can do both
I understand the frustration. It's inevitable. Tens of thousands of people want those tickets and they're in short supply. Technology isn't usually built to handle that kind of deluge happening instantly and only for a very short time.
Long story short: there was no way for this process to happen smoothly and seamlessly and with all interested parties getting their tickets. There may have been a way to do it -- have folks sign up for a lottery over a 48 hour period or something -- that could have reduced the tech issues. It still wouldn't have gotten tickets for everyone who wanted them and it would have been a different kind of logistical nightmare for the Democratic Party.
Fascinating thought, though: roughly as many people will see Obama and Clinton at the M-M dinner as had an opportunity to cast ballots in the entire Republican contest in Montana.
Here's another guess: M-M will not be either candidate's only appearance in this state, especially if it appears likely that the race continues on after PA, NC, and IN.
I know by the time June rolls around, I will be thoroughly sick of this campaign. My guess is I won't be alone.
(Steve Benen posted an interesting argument today: the attacks on McCain from the far right actually help his campaign. They make him look more moderate than he really is. Is Coulter's/Limbaugh's sudden Clinton crush genuine? Or trickery? - promoted by Jay Stevens)
If we needed any more evidence that the Repubs really don't want to run against Obama, this hits the blogosphere and the airwaves today. Rush has joined Ann Coulter in the ploy of supporting Hillary instead of McCain. If you look at the three main contenders for President, two are talking about reaching across the isle, and one is polarizing.
We keep hearing over and over again that HRC can't beat McCain in the general election but that Obama would. Here's why I think it's true. The argument is that McCain has lost his base and needs to have the independents and moderates to even have a shot. Hillary has the base, but the independents don't like her and the far right will rally against her. Obama is the only candidate who will rally his base and the fringe.
I found out yesterday that several moderate Republicans I know in PA are reregistering as Democrats so that they can vote for Obama. This is not a small phenomenon and I really hope our party leadership is listening. The last time around we gave the nomination to a candidate who financed his own campaign and look what happened. Four more years of Captain Underpants. We should all donate at least $10 to Obama before Saturday.
(crossposted at dailykos.com)
Jacob Hacker writes an article in today's tompaine.com.
What a difference a year makes. Just 12 short months ago, health care was nowhere on the political agenda, and pundits were confidently stating that, after the failure of the Clinton health plan a dozen years prior, Americans continued to be wary of serious action. Affordable, quality health care for all Americans was a pipe dream.
Last Saturday instead of heading out to the golf course or brunch, John Podesta of Center for American Progress got seven Democratic candidates for President to show up in Las Vegas for a Health Forum. Why? Contrary to the so-called "moderates" who said that caution carried the day in November of 2006, Hacker is excited that
The 2006 midterm featured a highly successful drive by winning Democrats to highlight the insecurities created by the new economy, especially on health care.
