Decision ‘08

Kos: Obama Wins, If He Runs

Standard caveats aside (it’s early, we don’t have a set field, blah blah blah), it’s hard to see how Barack Obama loses the nomination barring scandal or the mother-of-all gaffes.

I’ve been working up a few scenarios given the primary calendar (which isn’t set in stone, with states like California looking to move up), and really, it would be Obama’s race to lose.

Iowa is right next door to Obama’s Illinois, and while Vilsack will win it (getting no boost out of it), the race for second-place will determine the “true” winner. Hillary, for now, appears to be bypassing Iowa. So the early battle would appear to be between Edwards and Obama. A 2-3 finish for these guys, in any order, leaves them in good shape moving forward.

Nevada will be a battle between Edwards and his union allies, and Richardson and his southwestern and Latino base. New Hampshire will be fertile territory for Hillary and maybe Kerry (they hate Richardson because he pushed to insert Nevada into the calendar ahead of New Hampshire). And then South Carolina. With Iowa out of the big picture thanks to Vilsack, and New Hampshire diluted by Nevada, South Carolina may well decide our nominee in 2008. Richardson thinks he can win the state (I’m not sure how), and he, Edwards and Clark will stake their entire bids on the state. But given the state’s large African American population, along with Obama’s popularity with female voters (yeah, they love him), and it’s tough to see how the rest, splitting the dwindling white male vote, can overcome those hurdles.

There’s one thing that could put a skid on Obama’s fast rise — an Al Gore entrance into the race. Other than that, I don’t see a way anyone stops him.

Leaving aside that last bit - Al Freakin’ Gore? - that strikes me as a pretty sound analysis. Of course, our friend Anonymous Liberal was there first:

What I think the pundits and prognosticators fail to fully appreciate at the moment is the extent to which Obama’s entry into the race—if it happens—will entirely shake up the usual dynamics of presidential politics. Let’s put aside for the moment the fact that Obama is an exceptionally gifted politician, and just consider the following. In 1988, Jesse Jackson won 15 states and picked up almost a third of the delegates to the Democratic National Convention. And he did that without picking up hardly any white votes. If Obama were to run, he might well be able to replicate Jackson’s success among black voters, and he would almost certainly do exponentially better among non-black voters. In other words, he would be a formidable primary candidate.

But I think Deval Patrick’s success hints at an even more interesting dynamic that will arise if Obama’s should manage to secure the Democratic nomination. If that should happen, it will be THE story. And not just here in the U.S., but around the world. Obama would be the first African-American to win a major party’s presidential nomination. He’d be just one momentous day away from becoming the leader of the free world. No matter what else happens in the campaign, no matter who his opponent is, that single story line will dwarf all others. Throughout the campaign, media coverage will be dominated by discussion of the historical significance of the election. Newspaper and magazine headlines will scream “Is America on the Verge of Making History?” Throughout the country, there will be a pervasive sense that we are on the cusp of a dramatic and important historical event, that we’re about to take a bold new step forward as a nation. And believe me, people will get caught up in it. It will be a potent political phenomenon. Obama’s opponent, whether it be McCain or Romney or whoever, will have to try very hard to counter the sense that he is standing athwart history yelling “stop.”

He will be formidable, no doubt…I’m still of the mind that he should wait, but I’m starting to be won over by the arguments that he should strike while the iron is hot…

17 Responses to “Kos: Obama Wins, If He Runs”

1 Sean P Says:
December 5th, 2006 at 3:08 pm
I can see him winning the nomination, but for much different reasons.

Unlike Hillary and Edwards, Obama is not really affiliated with either the Dean/Gore/Kos wing or the Hillary/DLC wings of the party. This means that if he can make into the final two, he is probably assured the nomination (as he would soak up the lion’s share of the Hillary or Edwars supporters, depending on who folds first). However, he is going to have to be financially competitive with Edwards and Hillary, who will both likely be able to raise $100 million apiece in 2007. He will also need to cut into both of their leads without being seen as engaging in personal attacks, as he really doesn’t know at this point whether he will wind up needing Hillary supporters or Edwards supporters towards the end of the Primary season.

I think the race factor is overblown, however. Currently, Hillary beats Obama among black voters. And I don’t think voters will be willing to pass over a candidate they prefer on leadership issues (either in the primary or general) solely to “make history” any more than voters in Tennessee were this year. I think he’s the best candidate to run against McCain, since his generally bipartisan demeanor would win over the very Democratic leaning voters that are currently in McCain’s camp, but I don’t see him doing any better against Romney or Rudy than the other major candidates.
2 Gwedd Says:
December 5th, 2006 at 3:43 pm
Comrades,

Obama doesn’t stand a snowball’s chance of being elected. Hillary is to politics as Lucretia Borgia was to politics. If Hillary runs, Obama will see his political life poisoned by something or another, and that will be that.

If, by some miracle, he makes it out (politically) alive from the first round of primaries, he’s not going to survive too long without specifics. He’s a novice, and no matter how well intended he is, generlized polemics and soothing matras don’t win presidential elections. Bold, well-thought out plans with specics put in print do, and Obama may play well to the camera, but he can’t hold a political knife yet to any seasoned politician. He has no experience. Period.

Respects,
3 Mark Says:
December 5th, 2006 at 4:13 pm
Gwedd, isn’t it true, though, that most of your objections to Obama could have equally applied to JFK (the first one - not John Forbes Kerry)?
4 Aaron Says:
December 5th, 2006 at 4:42 pm
An Obama-McCain match-up would make quite a show if those two still have hard feelings after that kerfuffle over lobbying reform back in February.
5 Dennis Says:
December 5th, 2006 at 5:00 pm
Hmm, if Kos says it, doesn’t that mean Hillary is almost certain to trounce Obama now?

In all seriousness, while I agree that Obama has a good shot, I think it’s hard to take any analysis seriously if it treats Hillary Clinton as an afterthought, as Kos seems to do. It’s kind of amusing to see how his hatred of her is pretty much at the same level of those who used to run around claiming she killed Vince Foster in the study with the candletsick.
6 Clint Says:
December 5th, 2006 at 5:06 pm
It’s not so much that now is the perfect time for Obama, as that if he doesn’t go for it now, he will never get a better chance. Whereas going for it now, and finishing the primaries in second place, would put him in a great position to either get the VP nomination in ‘08 or the presidential nomination in ‘12, or both.
7 Mark Says:
December 5th, 2006 at 5:07 pm
Good point, Clint…he really DOES treat Hillary as an afterthought, you’re right…
8 Gwedd Says:
December 5th, 2006 at 5:09 pm
Mark,

JFK at least had some experience in Congress before setting his sights on the White House. He also had a very powerful machine supporting him, one that would dwarf Obama’s.

I had considered that very analogy, but also dismissed it because of Kennedy’s war record. He was a true hero, a decorated Navy Officer, and the war was barely 15 years over when he was elected. Close to the public, and they could use a few heroes in those days, with the rise of Russia as a strategic nuclear power, Cuba, Berlin Wall, et al.

Right now, Obama is, to the mainstream Dems, a usurper of sorts, a newcomer to the field, and I’m not really certain that will play well with middle America.

Respects
9 brassband Says:
December 5th, 2006 at 6:29 pm
Does Obama have ANY negatives?? Do you really think that Las Clintonistas are going to lay down and give him a free ride to the nomination?? If they perceive him as a real threat there will be lots of rumors, innuendo and other negative stuff beginning to swirl around him from the Clinton apologists in the media.

Face it, he’s a rookie and she’s a seasoned pro (or at least she’s surrounded by seasoned pros).

Also, do you think Edwards will do a dive for Obama in the Southern primaries?

Jesse Jackson’s “wins” in 1988 are not legitimate precedent. No one expected him to get the nomination for real, and no doubt a portion of his votes came from people who wanted to “send a message” but would never have wanted him to win the whole thing.
10 Anonymous Liberal Says:
December 5th, 2006 at 10:22 pm
Thanks for the link, Mark. I’ve been saying for a long time now that I think Hillary’s prospects are greatly overstated. I think her front-runner status is driven by eager conservatives who salivate at the prospect of her becoming the Democratic nominee and media-types who would like nothing better than to cover such a race. What’s left out of the equation is Hillary’s actual support among Democratic voters. Yes, she leads the polls now, but those polls are meaningless. At this point in 2003, Joe Lieberman had a similar lead and he ended up getting about as many votes as Al Sharpton. Her lead reflects name-recognition and little more. The Democrats end up doing well in presidential primaries either have very devoted followers or are perceived as being more electable than the rest of the field (this is how John Kerry won the nomination). Hillary is unlikely to compare well to people like Obama or Edwards by either of those metrics. She won’t win.
11 Scrapiron Says:
December 5th, 2006 at 10:47 pm
If Hussien Obama is indorsed by KOS he can submit him application for employment to McDonalds. Automatic loser. Anyway the Clinton mafia will knock him off before the election. Maybe they’ll borrow something from the Russians to make him suffer.
12 DBrooks Says:
December 5th, 2006 at 11:03 pm
As is often the case, lots of people tend to ignore the nuts-and-bolts mechanics of running for office. Hillary Clinton has an overwhelming advantage in every fundamental area. She has people by the nuts all over the country, has an enormous fund and fund-raising apparatus in place, she has thousands of operatives in place and organized, etc. I could go on, but the bottom line is she is well-funded, well-organized, and very prepared for a nomination fight. That is not an easy thing to do. Can these advantages be overcome? Yes, but I don’t think Barack Obama will find that possible. He has the obvious disadvantages, and, despite what AL says above, the idea of electing an inexperienced, once-elected black man with the name Barack Hussein Obama to the Presidency has major obstacles beyond the normal challenges of seeking that office. AL sees a groundswell of newness and excitement surrounding Obama’s candidacy. I think it is more likely that a growing realization will develop among the electorate that, while he is a genuinely likable person, he is ill-prepared for the office, and, as others have commented, the Clinton War Room operatives won’t be on idle if he proves to be a genuine threat. This is a case of people’s emotions running away with their common sense.
13 Dennis Says:
December 6th, 2006 at 10:15 am
At this point in 2003, Joe Lieberman had a similar lead and he ended up getting about as many votes as Al Sharpton.

Is this true? It may well be, but I don’t recall Lieberman ever having the kind of poll support Hillary enjoys, at least at this point in the last election cycle. Most polls I’ve seen show her support among Democrats somewhere in the 30s to 40s, with everyone else happy to crack double digits.

Now a lot of that may ultimately be weak support, subject to quick change if Obama jumps in, but I wouldn’t be quick to dismiss it all as name-recognition and nothing more. It’s important to remember a lot of Obama’s support is based on projection. Eventually he’ll have to start filling in the blanks himself, if he decides to run, and the halo will come off.
14 Sean P Says:
December 6th, 2006 at 11:31 am
Dennis:

To my recollection, you are absolutely correct. Lieberman led in the early polls, but generally hovered around the low double digits in most 2003 polls, and was nowhere near the level of support Hillary is at now. Moreover, he didn’t actually lose much support, he simply stood still while other candidates (first Dean & Clark, then Kerry & Edwards) increased their name recognition and passed him by. If Hillary can hold on to her existing level of support (and the Lieberman precedent SUPPORTS that position, rather than undermines it) she will be among the final two nominees.

Oh, and there’s a lesson here for the Rudy naysayers too.
15 Rick Says:
December 6th, 2006 at 6:15 pm
The lastest Rasmussen Report shows that Clinton has 34% of the support while Obama is at 17%. Here’s the thing, no one else is in the double digits. She has a huge advantage as people have said, but when was the last time the Democrats nominated the frontrunner? Maybe Democrats should change their means of voting. Republicans have voted for the frontrunner almost every election and they have had more Presidents than the Democrats (the Democrats came first mind you). As for Obama. Lets put it this way. Lincoln got elected with only 2 years as a Representative yet became one of the most well known Presidents in U.S. history. Can he win? Times have changed and Obama does not offer any electoral advantages. Clinton can deliver Florida, Arkansas and possibly Missouri and if that happens, Ohio, Kentucky, Tennessee and Louisiana goes blue.
16 Dennis Says:
December 7th, 2006 at 10:40 am
Actually, I think Democrats have nominated the frontrunner about as often as Republicans since the rise of the primary system. There may have been a few dark-horse nominees, namely McGovern in ‘72 and Carter in ‘76, but for the most part, the frontrunners win: Mondale in ‘84, Dukakis in ‘88, Clinton in ‘92, Gore in ‘00 and Kerry in ‘04. Kerry was unusual in that he went from frontrunner to also-ran to frontrunner again before the balloting started, and Clinton had a similar experience, although to a far lesser extent.

That history is what makes me think it’s foolish to discount Hillary, just because of the current Obama bubble. Bubbles have a way of popping, after all.
17 Sean P Says:
December 7th, 2006 at 5:50 pm
The Dems tend to nominate their front runner when there is one. The big difference between Dems and Reps in the nominating process is how often the Dems really don’t have a front runner. The Presidential field really was completely wide open in 1976 and 2004. In 1992, Clinton didn’t emerge as the front-runner until maybe three months before the Primaries began. And the 1988 field wasn’t called “the Seven Dwarves” because they liked to sing happy songs.