This blog printed on 100% recycled electrons.
So I get a ten-minute break from class and check the primary returns on CNN: not many precincts in yet from Wisconsin, and we'll have to stay up late to hear from Hawaii.
But if you want some interesting numbers to look at, see CNN's Wisconsin exit poll of Democratic voters. Plagiarism charges be darned, Obama is sweeping nearly every category. The only categories where Clinton comes out ahead are among women (a 3% margin), folks over 60, Catholics who go to church weekly, folks who think gender is an important factor, and folks in northwestern Wisconsin.
In the vote by education, Clinton tied Obama among folks whose highest degree is a high school diploma. As folks get smarter -- or at least as they report having more formal education -- they swing to Obama.
Obama posts higher numbers among every income group in Wisconsin (though it's really close among the $15K-$30K group). And on the issues -- among those who picked either the economy, Iraq, or health care as their most important issue -- Obama won every group.
I've been wrong before (remember the Muskie moment in New Hampshire?), so I'm not afraid to be wrong again. Clinton changed strategy to make an extra push in Wisconsin. That push appears to have failed.
Minor prediction: expect the Clinton campaign to be filing papers in court this month, before all the air goes out of their balloon, to get the Florida and Michigan delegates reinstated.
Update: by the way, I notice that among Republicans who crossed over to vote in the Democratic primary, Obama won 70%-30%. Interesting. If there were GOP mischief makers who wanted to give Clinton some help, they got outnumbered by Republicans with some other agenda. Anyone care to speculate?
F’ing USD
-
So a friend of mine made this rap a few years back, and I have to tell you
I have friends over the years who went there and tell the same boring
stories, LOL.
22 hours ago
Cory,
ReplyDeleteI wanted to extend on our Obama/liberalism discussion this past weekend. You got me thinking about his "type" of liberalism, and how he might be expressing this through his rhetoric. I'm really interested to see what you think about the Biblical quote, "I am my brother's keeper, I am my sister's keeper," that Obama often recites in his stump speeches. He seems to always point this out after laundry lists of Democratic social programs, which is in essence why I think it's so important--and here's my question (one that I've been pondering all week): Do you think this represents a shift in classical liberalism--in the belief that we're entitled to our own private freedoms? Isn't he advocating a shift from classical liberalism to the idea that we should use government as a mechanism for helping others, through social programs, to better achieve their personal freedoms? I see this as one representative example of the fading significance of classical liberalism's role in US politics since FDR, and would love to read your input...and how you might describe Obama's liberalism.
Thanks!
Steve
Exit polling shows Clinton's plagiarism cheap shot had blow-back. Outside of academic / scientific papers, copyright materials, etc., the charge was a liability. There isn't one professor (or grad student professor wannabe), politician, general, parent, or preacher who hasn't borrowed an unattributed phrase, line, quip, or illustration while on a verbal stump.
ReplyDeleteHere's the prognosis for 4 November: Obama in a squeaker. If Clinton weasels the nomination - McCain in a landslide. Middle America will not tolerate another Clinton or Bush.
ReplyDeleteBut if the economic apocalypse erupts before 4 November, then any democrat or Bloomberg will win.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080214/bs_afp/usmarketsbondspoliticsspitzer_080214234317
http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/
I'm not trained in debate and the fine nuances between liberalisms, but isn't what Steve is calling a new liberalism really socialism? Isn't that taking from those who have worked hard to get ahead and making sure that those who have not worked as hard get the same benefits etc?
ReplyDeleteI think the Obama craze is the same as what happened to me a few times when I attended church revival meetings. A gifted speaker can get people worked up to follow them, just as Obama is doing. Heck, I would even buy into the rhetoric if I were once again young and hadn't been paying taxes and working all my life. He sounds great.
But the problem as I see it is that he has not explained how he intends to do all these things, how he intends to deal with an enemy if after extending his hand in peace the enemy bites back hard instead of shaking it, where he intends to get all the monies to do all the wonderful things he has promised. I think when he has to start explaining all these instead of just giving feel-good speeches that his glow might start to fade in the face of reality.
Nonnie
It's tough to keep up with readers this thoughtful!
ReplyDeleteFirst, hi, Steve! And good to see you again, Nonnie!
Obama and a shift in classical liberalism? Well, I've just rolled out of bed, so let me (and other readers!) wake up with a cup of Wikipedia Wikipedia on the topic. Note that classical liberalism à la Adam Smith includes the idea of government provision of "a few basic public goods." What constitutes a public good, and what constitutes a few? Good question. You could say that "I am my brother's/sister's keeper" is Obama's answer to that question. One can believe in maximizing liberty and giving the free market room to run while still recognizing that a free market won't provide everything that a good society needs. Government exists for a reason: to fight wars, keep the peace, and fulfill some practical and moral imperatives that the free market won't or can't. Maybe Obama represents not the fading of classical liberalism but the clarification, the sharpening of our definition of its practical application. (See, Nonnie -- voting to work together doesn't have to be called socialism -- even Adam Smith might approve!)
Or maybe I'm just full of it. I need to read more!
Unattributed lines in stump speeches -- indeed, I've made a distinction like that in previous posts between speech and the written word. Of course, in the Internet age when the spoken word can become as permanent and shareable an artifact as a written text (YouTube, etc.), that distinction might fade. Clinton's charges in this case have turned out to be a red herring, but all of us who speak in public should still be respectful of language and sources.
I understand Nonnie's worries about what Obama will do if the world doesn't play nice with him. But I wonder why the Republicans didn't worry about that when GW Bush didn't lay out a coherent foreign policy in 2000? Candidate Bush promised a "humble" foreign policy with no nation-building (see this Helen Thomas article from 2003). Obama's rhetoric of cooperation should give us no more pause than candidate Bush's 2000 rhetoric of disengagement.