Lighting a Torch

So make no mistake: the choice in this election is not between regions or religions or genders. It’s not about rich versus poor; young versus old; and it is not about black versus white. It’s about the past versus the future.

It’s about whether we’re going to seize this moment to write the next great American story. So someday we can tell our children that this was the time when we healed our nation. This was the time when we repaired our world. And this was the time when we renewed the America that has led generations of weary travelers from all over the world to find opportunity, and liberty, and hope on our doorstep.

One of these travelers was my father. I barely knew him, but when, after his death, I finally took my first trip to his tiny village in Kenya and asked my grandmother if there was anything left from him, she opened a trunk and took out a stack of letters, which she handed to me.

There were more than thirty of them, all handwritten by my father, all addressed to colleges and universities across America, all filled with the hope of a young man who dreamed of more for his life. And his prayer was answered when he was brought over to study in this country.

But what I learned much later is that part of what made it possible for him to come here was an effort by the young Senator from Massachusetts at the time, John F. Kennedy, and by a grant from the Kennedy Foundation to help Kenyan students pay for travel. So it is partly because of their generosity that my father came to this country, and because he did, I stand before you today – inspired by America’s past, filled with hope for America’s future, and determined to do my part in writing our next great chapter.

So I’m asking for your hands. I’m asking for your help. And I’m asking for your hearts. And if you will stand with me in the days to come - if you will stand for change so that our children have the same chance that somebody gave us; if you’ll stand to keep the American dream alive for those who still hunger for opportunity and thirst for justice; if you're ready to stop settling for what the cynics tell you you must accept, and finally reach for what you know is possible, then we will win these primaries, we will win this election, we will change the course of history, and light a new torch for change in this country – and “the glow from that fire can truly light the world."

-Barack Obama, American University, Washington, DC 1.28.2008

Demographics and Low-hanging fruit or why a loss is a loss and a win is a win

A lot of the story out of the SC primary has focused on demographic analysis and whether or not Senator Obama got enough of the "White vote" to stay competitive beyond SC. First of all, as I noted in an earlier post you can't necessarily compare numbers across states, a point that was borne out once again as the demographics of the race changed dramatically from one state to another, and so did the results. Because Obama won women in Iowa didn't mean he went on to win them in NH. Just because his share of the white vote went down in SC doesn't mean white voters from earlier states have changed their mind, it means less whites voted for him in SC. It's a fallacy to present a change in votes between Iowa to New Hampshire to Nevada to South Carolina to be representative of any national or temporal trend. These aren't shifts in the overall electorate overtime, they are how the electorate in a particular state voted. Despite how media analysts present it, this ain't the same kettle of fish each time.

The other story coming out of SC, along with every other primary, that casts some doubt on the demographic analyses is that turn out on the Democratic side is up remarkably (my entry into the understatement of the year awards)...with every group. A lot of this is thanks to President Bush's incompetence and a lot is due to an exciting race. Either way, my point is that demographic analysis of the party based on past races doesn't really work. Furthermore the demographic breakdowns based on things as broad as race, gender, and education level don't get into nearly enough detail about the micro-targeting that these campaigns are doing (which can get as specific as what church a voter goes to, where they shop, where they get their news, what shows they watch, and more). Part of the reason the polls were so wrong in New Hampshire is that women supporting Senator Clinton turned out in unexpected numbers. What matters in these races is not the demographics of who's registered as a Democrat or even who has voted in these primaries in the past. The only demographics that matter are the demographics of the people that show up on the day. And with turn out up as high as it is across the board, these demographic analyses based on past numbers and broad groups don't have as much validity.

There's another reason we could be seeing these demographic shifts in the vote from state to state, it could be that the race in each state is different (I still believe Tip's adage, crazy right?). Notably the strategy of each campaign in each state is different. In a campaign where you have limited resources, your first goal is to turn out the lowest hanging fruit. For Senator Clinton she saw her support in the African American community, which at the end of last year she competed for fairly evenly with Senator Obama, erode dramatically along with her substantial lead. A combination of his win in Iowa, viability in the other states, and her campaigns tactics. From her campaign's perspective they decided to refocus on capturing other non-black voters where they were still competitive. For Senator Obama, in an electorate where upward of 50% of the vote was expected to be African American and that was breaking for him upwards of 80% (based on polling before the election), it makes sense he would have invested more heavily in turning out and appealing that favorable vote, and that being competitive in other demographics is just a bonus. It's that bonus that made his margin so huge last night, he tied Senator Clinton on white men, won women overall, and appealed to young voters across the board. Rather than it being a dramatic drop in Senator Obama or Senator Clinton's support among this group or that group from one state to the the next I think these changes represent particular strategies in each state contest. On that front I see a lot of reason to be happy about the results out of the early states as an Obama supporter.

The measure of success in these contests is not based on demographics but how effectively the campaign is appealing to those people it needs to appeal to in each state, and on that front the Obama campaign looks pretty good heading into February 5th. His message has cut across a lot of divides, it wasn't African Americans that won him Iowa by a large margin, or kept him in a close second in New Hampshire or Nevada. His campaign has shown an ability to analyze each state to figure out who they need to turn out, and to do so fairly effectively. After four races he's had two big wins and two close losses (one of which he actually came away with more delegates). That is not an attempt to spin those losses as nothing, a loss is a loss. My point though is that in the bigger picture; the delegate count, which is determined by proportional vote...the SIZE OF THE VICTORY MATTERS. I think New Hampshire and Nevada were important and hard-earned victories for Senator Clinton, but at the same time if the trend continues, if the Obama campaign can keep this targeting up and Obama wins big and loses little in the right places, a nomination is a nomination.

Mitt Romney and evidence of life in the world of journalism...

Yesterday while at a campaign stop in SC, Governor Mitt Romney had a "heated" exchange with AP reporter Glen Johnson. The video can be found here.

Johnson interrupted Governor Romney's pontification on not having lobbyists "running" his campaign. Johnson observed that Ron Kaufman is a lobbyist and is a Senior Adviser to the Romney Campaign. Romney defended his point, not contesting that Kaufman was a lobbyist (he undeniably is) but saying that if Johnson had listened he said that there were no lobbyists "running" his campaign, citing his campaign manager and deputy campaign managers were not lobbyists. Romney later continued the confrontation and his staffers told Johnson that he should "Be Professional".

Last night on some news commentary show I was watching on MSNBC (I forget which) this had sparked a debate about journalistic professionalism and politeness. Personally I think its commendable that anyone would stand up and refuse to let a candidate for office put forth outright falsehoods, and do so right then and there on the spot. And for a journalist I would say its part of the job description.

Although on my second viewing of the video I decided maybe Johnson could have done with being a bit more polite. Just when Johnson cut Governor Romney off from completing the sentence "I don't have lobbyists tied to my...". Now had Johnson been a bit more "polite" we could have heard the end of that sentence which I would speculate is ""campaign". In fairness though there is innumerable ways that sentence could have ended that would not have undercut his iron-clad "I said running not advising" argument. He could have been about to say "I don't have lobbyists tied to my...upper campaign staff". Or perhaps "I don't have lobbyists tied to my...campaign staff which has some form of 'deputy' appearing in their title". How about, "I don't have lobbyists tied to my...dog". Maybe he was going to go with, "I don't have lobbyists tied to my...wagon". Or finally my personal favorite, the one I was hoping he would end on: I don't have lobbyists tied to my... hitching post." Clearly any one of these could reasonably be assumed to be an ending to Governor Romney's statement, and would be a testament to his principled leadership. Sadly due to Glen Johnson's rude behavior...we'll never know.

“The Folgers Challenge: Hillary R. Clinton or George W. Bush”

We secretly removed who said each of these statements, let’s see if you notice:

“They [Islamic Terrorists] watch our elections as closely as we do, maybe more closely than some of our fellows citizens do…”1

"There's certainly a stepped-up level of violence [in Iraq], and we're heading into an election...”2

“When it comes to better securing our homeland and fighting the forces of terror, results matter. And when it comes to choosing a President, results matter.”3

“Let’s not forget you’re hiring a President not just to do what a candidate says during the election, you want a President to be there when the chips are down.”4

“So, you know, words are not actions. And as beautifully presented and passionately felt as they are, they are not action.”5

“You see, it's not enough to advocate reform. You have to be able to get it done.”6

“My opponent has good intentions, but intentions do not always translate to results.”7

“You know, what we've got to do is translate talk into action and feeling into reality.”8

“The murders in Madrid are a reminder that the civilized world is at war.”9

“I don’t think it was by accident that Al Qaeda decided to test the new Prime Minister”10




1. Senator Hilary R. Clinton, New Hampshire 1.7.2008
(http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/Story?id=4092530&page=31.9.2008)

2. President George W. Bush 10.20.2006 (http://www.onthemedia.org/transcripts/2006/10/20/021.9.2008)

3. President George W. Bush, Springfield, MO 7.30.2004 (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,127583,00.html 1.9.2008)

4. Senator Hillary Clinton New Hampshire, 1.7.2008
(http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2008/01/clinton_heighte.html 1.9.2008)

5. Senator Hillary R. Clinton, NH Debates, 1.5.2008 (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/Story?id=4092530&page=3 1.9.2008)

6. President Bush, Springfield, MO 7.30.2004 (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,127583,00.html 1.9.2008)

7. President Bush, Springfield, MO 7.30.2004 (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,127583,00.html 1.9.2008)

8. Senator Hillary R. Clinton, NH Debates, 1.5.2008
(http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/Story?id=4092530&page=3 1.9.2008)

9. President Bush, East Room, White House, 3.19.2004 (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/03/20040319-3.html 1.9.2008)

10. Senator Hillary R. Clinton, New Hampshire, 1.7.2008: (http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2008/01/clinton_heighte.html1.9.2008)

How'd Clinton Pull it Off

There are a few theories going around this morning as to how all the polling got it SO wrong. Election morning polls showed Obama with anywhere from a 4-12 point lead, the average was around 8. The results came in last night and we see a Clinton squeaker. So how'd she do it?

Over at the Rothenberg Report it's suggested that it may because of John Edwards dip, citing his drop from support in Iowa to New Hampshire he suggests that those that broke from Edwards, who we would think would break to Obama, instead went to Clinton. The problem is this treats the results out of two different states as if they were from the same set of folks. I don't think this explains the Clinton surprise as John Edwards finished at 17% which is consistently where he's been in polls out of New Hampshire since Iowa. In fact John Edwards is the one thing the polls got right, so I don't see how we can say that there was a "collapse" of Edwards explains Clinton's success, in NH there was no break from Edwards he finished right where he always was. I think Edwards may have played a role, but I'll get back to that at the end.

The next explanation I've heard is the contrarian nature of NH, and their desire to stick it to the media. I suppose this could have played a role but don't really know a way to test it other than anecdotally and I've not found anyone doing so. It's an interesting thought and I think it may be part though not all of the answer.

The other explanation I've heard was from Chris Matthews this morning who thinks that what happened was "The Bradley Effect" in which white survey respondents tell a pollster that they're voting for an African American candidate as they don't want to appear racist but when they are alone in the voting booth don't do so. It's interesting because it was while watching MSNBC that I saw this dismissed prior to NH, pundits citing Harold Ford's race in Tennessee as an example where an African-American got a vote percentage beating his poll numbers. It was suggested that this wasn't a factor in Iowa, as the Caucuses involve voting in public.

I think though, looking at the exit results vs. the poll results it's hard to make the Bradley Effect argument. Among white males we find that they broke for Obama. These are the people that I think are most likely to have lied to a pollster, for a white male it seems to be more progressive to be voting either for a minority or a woman. Had we seen this number break more in Edwards direction I'd be ready to call foul, but it didn't.

This leaves us with a final explanation, one that holds up with the exit data. Where the real surprise break for Clinton occurred was with Women. I'm not inclined to believe that women would not be proud enough voting for a fellow woman that they would lie to a pollster. Also I'm not quite ready to call white women liars, I mean, my mother is one. What this indicates to me is that there was a large block of women who changed their mind late in the game. Was it the "cry"? Was it President Clinton? Was it the fear-mongering by the Clintons? Was it John Edwards attacks at the debates? Was it Obama's muttering "you're likeable enough"? Or just the general media pile-on? I think the answer is probably yes to all of these, combined they made Senator Clinton seem like she was surrounded on all sides, vulnerable, but still out there fighting. That's something that must have gotten to a lot of women in the last couple days, and whether it just turned out more or changed their minds it doesn't matter. Through the Clintons' political skill and missteps of the other campaigns women sided with Clinton in force and she was able to pull off the upset.

So it begins

Senator Clinton has been out of the campaign trail in NH today with this gem:

“I don’t think it was by accident that Al Qaeda decided to test the new prime minister,” she said. “They watch our elections as closely as we do, maybe more closely than some of our fellows citizens do…. Let’s not forget you’re hiring a president not just to do what a candidate says during the election, you want a president to be there when the chips are down.”

Now the thing that first strikes me about this statement is that it sounds like it was crafted by Karl Rove, perhaps there was more to those reports about Bush advising the Senator than we thought.

The next thing that strikes me is her analogy to the UK transition from Prime Minister Blair to Brown, which coincided with the unraveling of a terrorist attack in London. The attack was discovered and dealt with by the UK security forces with little direction from the Prime Minister. I'm sure he was kept briefed and was ready for any development but there was a contingent of personnel at all levels, trained and ready for just such an occurence. His most prominent role in the event was in giving his nation's defiant response that they would not be threatened by such acts.

In the US our security apparatus, from the National Security Council and Joint Chiefs, down to the Police Officer out on beat are designed to provide some permanence in our security structure even in times of transition and crisis. I mean, the US security apparatus is designed with nuclear holocaust as it's worst case scenario, I think that we can endure another attack. Saying otherwise is somewhat of a denigration to our security forces at every level.

Having said all that I do agree that who is at the top of that apparatus is very important, and whoever the next President is they will have quite a challenge undoing the damage that the current Administration had done to it. In the end though, the most important role that a President plays as the head of that apparatus, is in being our nation's figurehead and in articulating our response as a nation. So if the worst should happen on January 20th 2009 or any day thereafter, I want the person who is deciding on that response to be someone who when they are put on the defensive will act with courage and wisdom to lift our nation back up and not someone who will react out of hubris and desperation to incite our worst fears. We've had enough of that.