Paradigm Shift?
Jan 4th, 2008 at 10:04 am by Susie
Nathan Newman on the Obama win last night:
I’m still deciding if this is just an organizational insurgency or a true political mobilization that could reshape American politics, but there is real promise there.
My worry is whether he is really mobilizing them on the content of his substantive message or just the vagueness of “change” in a time when people are angry and distressed. I’m not annoyed like some at his “post-partisanship” message, since the best way to build a big partisan majority is to assert this kind of non-partisan inclusiveness. No, the concern is that the ideas and policies filling his “change” message actually connect with people beyond momentary distress to shape a real analysis of what’s wrong with the nation.
At some level, Obama seems to say that the problem is merely the politicians. Their failures have gotten in the way of solving the problems of the American people. He’ll nod to the problem of corporate lobbyists but he usually won’t straight out identify the actors OUTSIDE GOVERNMENT, namely corporate power, as a signficant target for change.
Ultimately, Edwards is more willing to try to build a message of where the source of problems are. Politicians may not be acting to solve them, but Obama needs to talk more about that source of the problem, not just his vaguer blame of politicians failure to act, to convince me he can turn his organizational prowess into deeper ideological realignment of the populace.
I’ll tip my hat to his field organization, who really did an amazing job. But that doesn’t mean I’m happy with the results, because I’m not.
Me neither.
I’m neither happy or unhappy with the result, except happy with the dropping of Biden and Dodd out of the race. This is a three person race at this point, and the sooner we can get the debates and media to focus on it as such, the better.
I think Edwards’ perspective - almost 70% voted for change in the Democratic Iowa Caucus - is useful to remember, and preparatory for the next pivot. I’m not sure Edwards can beat Obama, but I see a clearer path for him than for Hillary beating Obama at all if this gets to be a two person race.
The question is whether this will become a two person race, up to Convention day.
Basically I see Obama and Edwards tied. Obama was put over the top by Richardson and Kucincih caucus goers switching to Obama as a result of some deal. While everyone reported on Richardson and Kucinich’s directions to their supporters to switch to Obama, no one, and I mean no one, has noted what the impact was (Obama by only 3.5%). The more I think about it, Obama would seem to have lost to Edwards without Kucinich and Richardson’s deals. Wonder what was offered in return? Why no discussion of this among the blogs, even lefties? Inquiring minds want to know.
What were the final (100% of precincts) results?
I can’t find them anywhere.
Last I saw, Edwards was a small fraction of a percent
ahead of Clinton.
i’m happy with the results. the only one of the big three i don’t want to win is clinton. a third place showing for her is perfect, IMHO.
Ron–while it’s hard to draw hard conclusions from such a complex process in which voters switch camps on either an individual or group basis, the “entrance polling” of Democratic caucus goers suggests that Edwards actually benefited more than Obama from second choice shifts, that is to say that Obama showed a healthy majority when people were asked to give their first choice and Edwards made up the most ground between entrance polls and final numbers. That is, at any rate, the quick and dirty analysis that Josh Marshall at TPM offers: http://tpmelectioncentral.com/2008/01/entrance_poll_the_secondprefs_winner_was_edwards.php.
I also don’t think that a candidate, such as Kucinich or Richardson, has all that much power to direct his supporters to vote for anyone in particular as number 2. This isn’t scientific, but the coverage i saw on CSPAN from the Democratic caucus in some precinct showed a Biden captain telling his fellow Bidenites that he was going over to Edwards, but taking a very soft sell approach, saying at one point “Of course, you should go where you want. . . . I’m not saying we should stay together as a bloc.” Given the face-to-face quality of the caucuses and the very loose allegiance that any caucus goer has to any particular candidate and ever looser allegiance to other members of his or her bloc, I just don’t think that “deals” matter all that much. After all, if unions can’t persuade their members to vote Democratic, then why would a recommendation from Kucinich or Richardson carry any weight?
I am an Edwards supporter but inclined to believe that his campaign is now effectively over, unless something totally unexpected happens in New Hampshire. I only hope he does not disappear after February, although I certainly don’t see Obama including him on his ticket.
I’m happy - no, ecstatic with the results. What has been asked for has been received. Now that it’s been gotten we can see what was really wanted. Let the games fucking begin for real.
Thanks Henry for the discussion and link. They basically jive with my ham handed look at pre and post numbers. I hope your wrong about Edwards though. While I’ll ultimately support any Dem over the party of Bush, I don’t see any substantive change coming from Obama. A lot of rhetoric yes, but the rest business as usual. Same machine running the country (to the detriment of all of us), just a different mask.