Some of my co-workers and I were out hitting people up for mail voting at the Bill Clinton speech this morning. With all the rain, it was like a scene from a Hemingway novel.
But mixing farce with whatever plotline we were in were two guys with giant signs telling people the Presidential nomination race is over and that Obama is the nominee -- in less polite terms.
I heard one Clinton supporter converse with them and it sounded to me like one of them said that they were actually Nader supporters when the woman told them that they weren't doing their candidate any favors.
There is something about operating in fundamentally bad faith in politics that really chaps my ass. And I know that probably makes me a hypocrite in some way that one of my conservative friends will be able to point out in no small time.
But, honestly -- how childish. And that goes for whether they're Nader or Obama supporters.
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.
Montana has a hell of a primary season coming up -- so I wanted to issue a call for info. The big benefit of the software that powers Left in the West is that anyone can contribute by writing diaries -- so feel free to register and start writing. Don't be surprised if your contributions show up on the frontpage (of course, if it gets to be super-intense, don't be offended if they don't).
Long story short, the current team here won't be able to do justice to all the races shaping up here in Montucky:
U.S. President: The Obama/Clinton showdown is coming to Montana. Who's up? Who's down? Who's got volunteers on the doors?
U.S. Senate: The Republicans have a four-way primary for U.S. Senate. In what is likely to be a low turnout primary (Presidential votes won't matter, none of the campaigns are running particularly hard), who will take the prize? It's hard to beat Mike Lange for name recognition. But he's got a problem: everyone associates him with his PLT. Will Bushman pull it off? Will one of the dark horse candidates squeak out an inexplicable victory? What are you seeing/hear?
Governor: It looks like Brian Schweitzer will face a primary. I'd be hard-pressed to call it a close contest, but that doesn't mean it couldn't create some interesting, um, spectacles -- not the least of which is the current poll on the righthand side.
Attorney General: Both the Ds and the Rs have primary fights for their parties' nods for the AG race. This is likely to be among the fiercest fights in the primary. And big turnout in the Presidential could render all the legwork here for naught.
Superintendent: The Ds have a 4-way race. Again, big turnout could make this a surprising race to watch.
State Legislature: In districts across the state, open seats are seeing primaries -- and if Koop-dog has his way, the GOP arena will be absolutely full of 'em.
County Commission: At least in Missoula, we've got a commission primary -- I'm sure similar stuff is happening elsewhere.
Now I'm sure some folks would rather not write full posts. Email always works -- and if you post something interesting in comments, we'll do our best to follow-up.
Bottom-line: no newspaper in this state is big enough or dedicates enough resources to adequately cover the kind of primary we're about to witness. Help us do what we can to fill the gaps.
Wow. Early guess: this marriage of soaring rhetoric, masterful production, and big names becomes one of the most watched pieces of political advertising in history.
Watching this, I could not help but remember the statement from Hillary Clinton about giving people false hope -- and remember why in this two person race I prefer Barack Obama.
Right now, our country faces a lot of challenges. A lot. Of challenges. Really, really big challenges.
We need some hope. We need some inspiration. We need someone who can motivate people to get involved and make a difference in their own lives.
For some people, Hillary Clinton may offer that. But for me, it's Obama.
Honestly, with less than a week to Super Fat Tuesday, it's quite possible that the strangest story of the evening could be a surprise win in Montana by Congressman Ron Paul.
From my understanding of caucus rules, this whole thing isn't actually a caucus. It's just a very selective secret ballot. And it's a plurality winner.
That means that Ron Paul supporters just need to beat John McCain, Mike Huckabee, and Mitt Romney. So far, Romney is considered the strongest contender in the state, but I'm not really sure that they aren't all being out-hussled by Ron Paul. And it's quite possible that 35% will take this thing.
I'm not alone in my thinking on this. I've heard concern from a few Republicans that Paul could pull this thing off -- and that all of his grassroots supporters aren't really committed to staying on with the party when he fails to win the GOP nomination.
Wow. I've been a little ambivalent about Ron Paul, since I thought he brought some interesting perspectives on little discussed issues like the war on drugs (Matt Stoller ably snapshots why that matters) into the Presidential field, but it's really time for supporters of his to do some explaining.
Long story short - the support Ron Paul is receiving from the White Supremacist movement doesn't look like an accident of history. This is a man, after all, who in 1992 referred to "95% of the black males in [Washington, D.C., as] semi-criminal or entirely criminal."
Now, some of his supporters say that quote has been "explained" because a staff member wrote it, not Paul himself. Yeah, sure, whatever.
It seems the leprechaun himself went on Meet the Press on Sunday and proceeded to criticize Abraham Lincoln for fighting the civil war and explained his stance opposing the civil rights act of 1964. Is it really so shocking in this light that a staffer of his would feel comfortable writing about how black people hold bad political positions and tend to be criminal?
Matthew Yglesias does a nice job summarizing what is wrong with Paul's statements here. A more thorough taking apart is done by Ari of The Edge of the American West.
The problem with Mr. Lincoln, you see, was that he pushed too quickly to end the institution of slavery. Mr. Paul, as a dedicated libertarian, has made it clear he wants to use his position as President to bring an end to such heinous practices as government regulation of pasteurized milk. But as a true believer in freedom, he would have allowed slavery to continue, because we could use market-based solutions to end it (in other words, there was no need to actually outlaw the practice of owning people, we just needed some Foundations to spring up; if people want to be free, they should pay for it).
Even crazier, he makes it sound like Lincoln swept into office on a call for war to end slavery, which is far, far from the truth. Lincoln was a moderate abolitionist, who was simply trying to contain slavery - a position that in itself led South Carolina to secede.
In other words, Ron Paul is rewriting history in a way to defend the institution of slavery.
One final point that often gets disputed by "iconoclastic" Southerners, even liberal Southerners: the Civil War was very much about slavery and the South protecting a racist institution. That's not to say it was what motivated all the individual soldiers or even all the leaders, but the Civil War fundamentally started over the issue of slavery.
And on that fundamental point, the abolitionists were right and the slaveowners - and their defenders who even 150 years later would hem and haw for us to take it slow - are wrong.
Sorry for the unannounced absence. I went on vacation -- was in an undisclosed locale with temperatures over 90. Coming back to Missoula was a bit of a surprise -- but it is great to see snow.
Interesting stuff happening here. Like many others, I was sorry to hear about Bill Kennedy's apparent health troubles. I don't know anything more than what I've read -- and that includes for potential new candidates in that race. I don't even know if the candidates being talked about are seriously considering it. So no real news on that front.
But there's something else going on in Montana politics that seems worth discussing. That's the GOP caucuses. So far they haven't been getting much mention. That's too bad.
That said, I was talking to a Republican today who is eligible to caucus who said she got an ID phone call from the Romney campaign (she's not a Romney supporter). She also indicated that in her neck of the woods, Ron Paul supporters are lining up to fill empty seats on the central committee and be able to caucus for their guy.
Now, I have no idea how many vacancies GOP central committees had statewide prior to this process. I do know that one of the big strengths of the caucus process was the likelihood of campaigns doing a lot of the legwork to build GOP grassroots in Montana.
So here's the question: is anyone other than Romney and Paul working in Montana (noting that Steve Daines is apparently helping Huckabee, for what that's worth)?
And is anyone other than Ron Paul supporters lining up to join central committees?
And, can Ron Paul supporters gain sufficient numbers to be a real force in the caucus?
And, will Ron Paul supporters stick around in the GOP even if/when their candidate loses?
Dean's grassroots operation from 2004 embedded itself pretty firmly inside the Democratic and progressive establishments. A lot of my cohorts from back in the day are now working at the DNC for the big candidates or whatever. Others, like me, went into the less partisan, but still ideological, world.
The question is what Paul's supporters will do after this. Stay in the GOP? Move to the Libertarian Party? Start a significant national PAC a la Democracy for America to impact conservatism in general?
Celinda Lake, a D.C.-based pollster who hails originally from Montana, is getting beat up by the blogs for releasing numbers showing Clinton and Obama hurting down-ballot Democrats.
Chris Bowers specifically dismisses the concern, highlighting some statewide polling in swing states showing Clinton to be competitive nationally.
But there are some big problems with Chris's claims.
You can't conflate state-level polling numbers with swing district polling numbers. Even swing districts in swing states differ from their statewide makeup. It is quite possible that Hillary Clinton polarizes the country, strengthens our hand in urban America, and weakens us in rural areas and small towns. I can't say that's the case, but Chris's conjecture is just that as well -- hypothesizing the outcome he'd like.
It may be unfair to blame the specific candidate for down-ballot outcomes since, as Chris notes, local voters don't want to think of their candidate as a tool for anybody. That's also something that we need to keep in mind on our side -- we should be tying their candidates to their nominee as well. And our candidates should always work to make it clear how they represent their district, not the national party.
It isn't just Celinda Lake who is nervous about this. Ask any state legislative candidate in even purple America. I like Chris's writing, but by his own admission he lives in one of the bluest neighborhoods in the country. I live in a city that is bright blue by Montana standards, but my county went for John Kerry by something like 51-49 -- this ain't landslide territory.
Despite concerns being raised all over the country, the Clinton campaign has done nothing to ease fears -- probably because they don't feel the need to. Movement leaders are keeping their mouths shut and people like Bowers are defending Hillary from the insinuations so far. The last time we had a Clinton in office, the rest of the party got decimated. At the very least, some assurances that Team Hillary cares about the rest of the party would be appreciated, I'd think.
Bowers encourages folks to check out his map of Clinton beating Giuliani. It's a nice map. And it possibly even gives us some hope in places like Virginia and New Hampshire. But it also tells us that a Clinton nomination probably puts Colorado's Senate race into way more play than the Democrats would like -- and it puts Idaho and Texas completely out of reach.
None of these polls can measure turn-out effect. Isn't it just possible that up against a Mitt Romney or a Rudy Giuliani or a Fred Thompson some evangelical voters would have a tough time turning out to stop John Edwards or Barack Obama? Does anyone really think they won't mobilize against Hillary Clinton? We'll be dealing with those voters in states all across the country. And those voters won't just mobilize in the Presidential race. They'll vote down-ballot as well. So let's say it gives Gordon Smith in Oregon some freedom to run to the middle and plan on Hillary hatred to mobilize the base. And it's not like Clinton wins necessarily in Oregon, which is still a swing state. So there goes another D Senate seat. No one has seen polling for Alaska, but I'd imagine it's No Bueno, so say goodbye to that one. In New Hampshire, SUSA actually has Clinton in a dead heat with Giuliani. So does John Sununu get an easier race? In Virginia, Mark Warner is probably in good shape, but Clinton's numbers are not solid. In other words, dreams of a big sweep in the Senate get much, much rougher with a Clinton nomination.
Especially when you consider the Clinton's historic concern for down-ballot victories.
(Note: I posted this at Daily Kos recently, and based on a pretty good response I'm trying to give it a little more exposure. Hope you don't mind the crosspost)
John Edwards is pretty good when it comes to the credit card industry. To be sure, he has made an issue out of it, while I can't find much anything about the issue on either Hillary Clinton's or Barack Obama's websites. I'll give credit where it's due: He's willing to take on issues that matter to real Americans.
But then the flip-side of that is that I'm addressing this diary to him, and not to the others. They should listen too. But I think Edwards is the only one who might, and maybe is the one who can make the best political use as well.
RBI Strategies has polled some head-to-head matchups for the Presidential race in Colorado. Unsurprisingly, Hillary Clinton runs far weaker against Republicans than Barack Obama, the other Democrat polled in the race.
Against Rudy Giuliani, Hillary polls 44% to Rudy's 50%. Obama comes much closer, trailing Giuliani by a single point -- 45-46.
The same thing happens against Mitt Romney. Hillary leads Mitt -- 48-42. But Barack has a much wider lead -- 50-37.
If we want to win the West in '08, we'd be wise to nominate someoneother than Hillary Clinton (the Colorado poll didn't include Edwards).
I failed to cover this earlier, but it is now official -- Montana Republican party officials will caucus in February to determine who gets the backing of the state GOP in the nomination fight. The caucus plan is highly exclusionary -- only 3,000 Montanans will participate, compared to over 100,000 who usually take part in primaries.
Moorcat, a former Republican, is upset, to put it mildly. Other conservative bloggers have been less than happy. They see this as an exclusive approach. And, of course, it is.
Now, there's a decent good faith argument for exclusionary approaches. With no party registration and with no Democratic caucus on the same day, Montana Republicans might be fearful that an unusually large group of cars with "Obama '08" and "John Edwards for President" bumper stickers would fill up their caucus parking lots and out from them would emerge...wait for it...wait for it...hippies wearing "Viva Tancredo!" t-shirts, planning to caucus for the crazy guy from Colorado.
There's an equal good faith case to be made, if the purpose of the caucuses is not to give Montana voice in the primary, but also to rebuild central committees. Obviously, there are other ways that people could establish party membership for the purposes of caucusing -- becoming a dues paying member, for example. But if the goal is to rebuild central committees, being super-exclusive is a way to do that.
Unfortunately, while it's easy to appreciate good faith efforts in politics (even if they counter to my preferences), it is frustrating when they get hijacked so quickly.
Eric over at WRIM, who is also one of the anointed (thanks to his role as a precinct committee member) is already pledging to caucus and then vote in the Democratic primary for Hillary Clinton, so we've already got one Republican player trying to figure out how operate in bad faith in the middle of all of this.
Chris Bowers at OpenLeft.com has compiled some general election electoral maps if Clinton is the nominee. The numbers look spectacular, Clinton winning in landslides. But the Rocky Mountain West looks depressingly like we'd be partying like it's 1994.
Against Giuliani or Romney, Clinton carries only New Mexico in the dryland West. And that, of course, is assuming all stays static between now and November of '08.
All the more reason I'm worried about what she does to us down-ballot here in Montana. 'Cause you don't win an electoral rout while only being ahead nationally by a few percentage points unless you're off the charts low in a few regions.
Barack Obama is saying that Hillary is too divisive, too polarizing.
Chris Bowers misunderstands this as an argument about Hillary's electability. It's not. I think Hillary will win the Presidency if she's the Democratic nominee. I also think she will decimate the Democratic Party in Montana in the process and bring us an extremely nasty political front.
Ironically, as a very, very smart political mind recently emphasized to me, Hillary Clinton is the worst nominee politically in terms of divisiveness while also being the worst nominee policy-wise in terms of being DLC-ish -- at least of the big three.
John Edwards, who may be the biggest game-changer policy-wise, may be able to win in states that neither Obama or Clinton can. And Obama falls somewhere in between the other two.
I have to confess to being slightly surprised as to how many Rocky Mountain Westerners I've recently met who say they are supporting Hillary. Her public polling numbers are atrocious. I've heard internals have her even worse off. And while I don't doubt that a political operation as sharp as hers could move those numbers if they needed to, I seriously doubt her commitment to moving numbers in Montana.
Rolling Stone's Tim Dickinson takes a sweeping look at the policy and politics of John Edwards in a flattering but fair profile of the number 3 candidate who is right on the money when it comes to the issues.
Flying below the radar, the former vice-presidential candidate is pulling off a feat that Democratic consultants have long considered impossible: staking out the most progressive platform among the viable candidates while preserving an aura of electability. In head-to-head polling against the likes of Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney, Clinton and Obama have managed to post only modest leads. Edwards, by contrast, not only bests every Republican candidate in the race, he trounces them -- by an average of twelve points.
There's some discussionofcaucus plans coming out of the GOP. What all the discussions are missing is why the changes are being proposed.
My gut, as I wrote earlier, is that it has nothing to do with the Presidential nominating process and everything to do with rebuilding central committees relatively quickly and easily -- although also expensively.
The Republican Party just found a fairly quick and easy way to get nearly 2,400 people on their various central committees. That's 2,400 people who can presumably be mobilized to knock doors in the fall for their legislative candidates.
None of this is rocket science -- it's actually a smart plan. But the question observers should ask themselves when they see party insiders maneuvering things like this, all I'd suggest is to ask what their interest is. Why is Erik Iverson spending his time pitching a Presidential initiative when, by all indications, his real interest is state legislative races?
Look, I know I've spoken highly of John Edwards in the past, but I've changed horses. I think we need our next President to be dumber than the current one.
In all seriousness, Homer J. Simpson is competing with most of his family, Stewie Griffin (of the Family Guy), and C. Montgomery Burns (possibly others -- hopefully not Otto, though, unless he gives all Americans those guitars that are like double guitars as part of the campaign), for the Presidency as part of a New Organizing Institute bid.
Cory Kalanick of Great Falls is one of the NOIers working for Homer. So do a Montanan a favor and help Draft Homer today.
By the way, all emails will be deleted at the end of the week as the campaign school wraps up -- so don't worry about spam.
Let me preface this with a simple disclaimer: I don't believe that the Democratic nominee will win Montana's electoral votes in 2008. Here's a caveat for that disclaimer: If the Democratic nominee does win Montana's electoral votes in 2008, it will be part of an electoral rout reminiscent of Johnson v. Goldwater and the electoral votes will be of little consequence.
That said, the numbers in the the Lee poll look surprisingly good to me for the Democratic contenders. McCain and Giuliani poll the best, but McCain looks increasingly unlikely to win the nomination. And Giuliani's numbers will slip as the public as a whole gets a closer look at Mayor Insano. After that, Fred Thompson is someone who could clearly take the state, but both Barack Obama and Bill Richardson are right behind him (who would have thought -- in order to win Montana, the secret strategy is simple, run a black man or a Latino -- why didn't we think of it before?).
Dems are really only in truly rough shape if we nominate Hillary and the Republicans nominate McCain or Thompson.
