Monday’s campaign round-up

June 2, 2008

Today’s installment of campaign-related news items that wouldn’t generate a post of their own, but may be of interest to political observers:

* On the superdelegate front, there’s been some movement since Friday at noon. If my count is right, Barack Obama has picked up four (Nevada’s Yvonne Gates, Virginia’s Jerome Wiley Segovia, Connecticut’s Nancy DiNardo, and Maine odd-on delegate Gwethalyn Phillips). Hillary Clinton earned two (Buddy Leach and Chris Whittington, both of Louisiana).

* Former Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack, a national co-chairman of Clinton’s campaign, told the AP that the race for the nomination is over. “It does appear to be pretty clear that Senator Obama is going to be the nominee,” Vilsack said. “After Tuesday’s contests, she needs to acknowledge that he’s going to be the nominee and quickly get behind him.”

* Turnout has soared throughout most of the Democratic contests, but yesterday’s turnout in Puerto Rico fell far short of expectations: “A total of 380,000 ballots were cast, making up only a little over 16% of the island’s voters — well short of the 900,000 that both campaigns had once thought was a reasonable estimate.”

* In a move filled with symbolic significance, Obama will host a rally tomorrow night in Minnesota — at the site of this year’s Republican National Convention: “Tuesday is the night of the final Democratic primaries, and the choice of venue is a mischievous, aggressive way for Obama to unofficially kick off the general election campaign against John McCain. The location gives huge meaning to the moment, with Obama likely to frame a tough case against his new opponent in the very hall where McCain will accept his party’s nomination.”

* This was unexpected: “A McClatchy computer analysis, incomplete due to the difficulty matching data from various campaign finance reports, found that hundreds of people who gave at least $200 to Bush’s 2004 campaign have donated to Obama.”

* Paul Kane, the WaPo’s congressional reporter, said on Friday that he’s been watching Dems on the Hill for a while, and “the simple basic truth is that the super-delegates stopped paying attention to the Clinton-Obama race about a couple days after the Indiana and North Carolina primaries. They’ve stopped paying attention to the primary, and instead they’re focused on an Obama-McCain matchup in November. That’s the basic, simple, definitive reality that has happened in this race.”

* A SurveyUSA poll found Obama leading McCain in Wisconsin, 48% to 42%.

* Sen. Joe Biden (D-Del.) told the Washington Times that Obama has asked him to “play a more prominent” and “deeply involved” role in his campaign. Biden, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Times, “I’ll do whatever he asks me to do.”

* Ron Paul fans are still rabble-rousing at state GOP conventions.

* In a very unimpressive showing, James Gilmore (R) just barely won the Republican nomination for the U.S. Senate over the weekend at the Virginia GOP’s nominating convention. Running against an under-funded and largely unknown state lawmaker, Robert Marshall, the former Virginia governor and presidential candidate won with 50.3% support.

* The Weekly Standard’s blogger, Michael Goldfarb, has left the magazine, at least temporarily, to go work for McCain.

Just for fun…

Who Should Be Obama’s VP? http://www.choiceranker.com/election.php?eid=206
Who Should Be McCain’s VP? http://www.choiceranker.com/election.php?eid=207

Richardson has the lead.
Obama could do much much worse.
Napolitano, my other choice did well too.

  • I read so many of these darn lefty blogs that I forget where I read what. But the Obama-in-Minneapolis story has drawn some really clever observations.

    – Obama is “marking his territory” before the Repubs show up in Minnesota.

    – Repubs will fly into Minnesota through the Larry Craig International Airport.

    – The Repub convention will be held just a few miles from the collapsed Mississippi River bridge, a symbol of America’s crumbling infrastructure while the neocons have focused all their attention on dumb adventures overseas.

  • Why, after Clinton lost to Obama (though only barely), do people still think she’s more “electable”? Obviously, primary voters are not the same constituency as the general election. But I’m hearing people say that Clinton should be the nominee because she’s such a kickass candidate, whereas Obama is too mellow.

    Yet here we are, with Obama’s ass un-kicked.

    Furthermore, fears about Obama’s alleged mellowness seem to be based on the fear that he’ll be trashed the way Democrats are always trashed. It’s cynicism, pure & simple: the sweet prince is too good for our rough world.

    I’d rather Obama lose than be forced to admit that his type of candidate is incompatible with the republic we’ve made for ourselves.

  • “In a move filled with symbolic significance, Obama will host a rally tomorrow night in Minnesota — at the site of this year’s Republican National Convention”

    I think the Republicans have vastly underestimated they type of campaign Barack Obama will run. In the past all the Republicans had to do was say “boo” and the Democrats would wet their pants. This time I think the Republicans will find themselves playing defense.

  • Okay, when your own national co-chair tells you to be a big girl and face reality…time to be a big girl and face reality.

    As for the Bush + Obama $200+ contributors, I don’t think it’s at all unexpected. It’s called hedging your bets, and without doubt most of those people will be maximum donors, not $201 donors. They know Obama’s going to be the next president. This is not good news for McCain.

  • James Gilmore (R) just barely won the Republican nomination for the U.S. Senate

    Name recognition just ain’t what it used to be. Or maybe it’s the brand. Congressman Rick Davis (R-VA) recently used a dog food metaphor to describe the Republican brand. Maybe he’ll refer to Gilmore as “Alpo Classic.”

  • Weary: thanks for the links.

    I was shocked (shocked!) that Jeb Bush is completely absent from the Republican preferences.

    Let’s hope that McCain actually chooses #1 in the poll – Huck! What a hoot!

    Or Jindal at #2. To offset Obama’s “inexperience”?

    What a sorry lot.

  • That Nancy Pelosi acts like she’s the convention chair and has to think about the party’s interests or something. Uppity chick.

  • Danp: TOM Davis, and he was the former Republican Congressional Campaign Chairman.

    SaintZak: Exactly, which is why I have not been worried about the ‘oooh wait until the big bad scary republicans start attacking him.’ Along with all the positives in his speeches, he’s also made — pardon the Reagan reference — his whole campaign into a “There you go again’ moment. And without using the numerous ways in which he could get into — and win — a pissing contest. (Imagine how it must have galled him when Bill used the Lincoln bedroom for fund-raising purposes. Imagine how he could have swung Hispanics to his side by quoting the McAuliffe channelling Tancredo on NPR.)

    Again, give McCain 10 states at most, and pretty small ones for the most part. The polls may not show it now, but I keep saying this:
    McCain has no upside. He can only lose votes from here on. (The same was true of Hillary which is why she lost.)

  • I did both those VP polls that Too Weary linked to and found them both difficult, but for opposite reasons. While I could only think of Clark as the Dem VP choice (though I’d accept just about anyone short of Hillary or Joe Lieberman), the GOP list was just dripping in horrible, horrible choices, any of which would be great to see on the ticket.

    My realistic choice is Huckabee, but when I saw Gingrich’s name on there, I had to pick him first. That jerk could sink Jesus Christ’s candidacy. And it was tough to pick between Tancredo and Brownback, both of whom would be utter embarrassments; and wish I could have picked them both as my number two slot. And then there’s Condi, who would drag down McCain in so many different ways (gender, race, specific blunders, general incompetence, the weird tooth thing) that she’s a whole smorgasbord of Republican defeat. And then I rounded it out with Huck at number five, though I don’t think there was a person on the list I wouldn’t like to see.

    This is just a bad year for Republicans and not picking Mitt was a HUGE mistake. But for as much as McCain was already a bad choice, adding ANYONE to the ticket just makes it worse. These days, every Republican has their flaws; but putting them together just increases the flaws exponentially. The big question facing McCain is whether he picks a running mate with the same flaws he has, which emphasizes the flaws; or picking someone with entirely different flaws (like Huck), and therefore pissing EVERYONE off. Tough call.

  • Ron Paul fans are still rabble-rousing at state GOP conventions.

    Maybe they can get together with Greg and Mary and Impartial and Luckie and the rest of the Clinton retards and start the American Political Retards Party.

  • Prup said: Has anyone noticed how many of Hillary’s recent superdelegate votes have come from the White South?

    Aren’t they the “hard workers” a winning campaign needs to win????

    /snark

  • For me the statements from Former Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack are most telling (if accurate; I don’t really trust Time that much ever since they gave Ann Coulter a column). I always saw him the mouthpiece for the reasonable side of the Clinton campaign. Hopefully by Tuesday night, we’ll see if it his words really stick.

    The news about the Congressional Dems is also pretty interesting, and something (if true) should be also very sobering to any Clinton supporters. That is, this race was over back in North Carolina, and Obama is the nominee.

    Regarding weary’s VP link:

    The question now is finding a suitable VP candidate (Richardson seems to be the leading choice and I think he’d be good; though I like Webb too).

    If I were part of the Obama campaign, I’d recommend against Clinton, Biden, Hagel or any Clinton supporter. Though I add the caveat that Richardson was once in Bill Clinton’s adminstration.

    I figure the things they should be looking at for a VP are: someone who complements Obama on the ticket rather than a clone, is a team player, a really good campaigner, and who can help Obama push his agenda through Congress.

    Regarding Jeb:

    I think he’s going to wait till 2012. The Bush name isn’t really going to help any GOP members in the coming election, so actually being one would probably be worse.

  • Prup (10): Danp: TOM Davis, and he was the former Republican Congressional Campaign Chairman.

    Good catch. Rick Davis is the lobbyist running McCain’s campaign. Tom is the Congressman from VA who was also the RCCC chairman.

  • “I think the Republicans have vastly underestimated they type of campaign Barack Obama will run. In the past all the Republicans had to do was say “boo” and the Democrats would wet their pants. This time I think the Republicans will find themselves playing defense.”

    That was my thinking, too. His choice of venue is symbolic of the way he plans to take the fight to McCain and the Republicans. Recently, McCain attacked him on national security, typically a Republican issue. Yet instead of backing down or changing the subject, Obama stood his ground, showing he intends to win on national security, not just hold his own. He’s a different kind of candidate, and clearly he’s not afraid of a tough campaign.

  • I was surprised that my dark horse VP pick wasn’t even a selection. I believe Obama will pick someone he trusts to become a good president, a team player, a nationally known politician and a person that reassures middle America. Mark Warner and John Edwards may qualify, but I expect that Obama will turn to one of his early supporters and trusted advisor: Tom Daschle.

    Yes, I know their are lobbyist concerns, but those issues are very “inside the Beltway” to most Americans.

  • Maria, @5,

    I’m not sure it’s “hedging your bets”; I think it’s an honest change of heart. You do, occasionally, see true hedging on:
    http://fundrace.huffingtonpost.com/
    where some people have given to a Repub candidate in late ’07 but to Obama in April ’08, but that’s rare. Mostly, those who gave to Bush in ’04 seem to have finally got too disgusted with the whole Repub bandwagon and didn’t support it at all. They switched sometime around ’06 and haven’t switched back. And the reason they picked Obama as their choice is because he’s the *furthest away* from Bush and all that Bush stands for, in every respect. And I think that, unlike those Repubs who voted for Clinton in the later primaries (once their own candidate had wrapped up the nomination, to all intents and purposes) without any intention of voting for her in General (should she become the Dem nominee), these will, in all probability, vote for Obama in November.

    • Comments are closed.