The Home of Steven Barnes
Author, Teacher, Screenwriter


Wednesday, February 06, 2008

Three have a good night...

So it's gonna be McCain and SOMEBODY. Interesting to hear Limbaugh's whining...not sure what that's about, or if I should believe it.

Hillary had a better than expected day in California. MAN the Zogby polls were off! That's a real question mark for me. Obama did great in the heartland and the South, Hillary along the coasts. What a battle. I really hope they can see their way to a joint ticket.
##
Saw "The Orphanage" last week. An incredible haunted house film executive produced by Guillermo Del Toro. ONe of the best genre films I've seen in a year. An "A".
##
Saw "Rambo." Violent, bloody, sombre, not a lot of real fun, using the backdrop of the Myanmar rebellion for superhero theatrics makes me a little queasy. Those who want to watch the effects of modern munitions on the human body will have a grand old time. Not as faithful to the core of "Rambo" as "Rocky Balboa" was to the original "Rocky," I suppose I'll still give it a "C+"

26 comments:

Frank said...

Democrats are now on-course for a long primary season that will culminate in a brokered convention.

The question will be: what will happen if Hillary wins by virtue of the Super delegates only?

Ed Morrissey pointed out today

It's still looking like the GOP 1976 for the Democrats. If Hillary has to rely on the superdelegates to beat Obama at the convention, it will be a disaster for the party. They needed a more decisive outcome yesterday, and what they got was a complete muddle.

Mike Ralls said...

Regarding Hilary's better expected performance in California:

----
http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2008/02/a_patchwork_of.html
Sen. Hillary Clinton can thank Latino and Asian voters for her projected victory in California. Early exit polls indicate that Sen. Barack Obama carried white voters in California because of his overwhelming support among white men. White women, as in other states, more often supported Clinton. Black voters overwhelmingly favored Obama but Asian voters, whose numbers are comparable to blacks, went overwhelmingly for Clinton. The deciding factor may have been Latinos, who make up roughly 30 percent of California's Democratic vote. They went for Clinton by a two-to-one margin.


In November, after the election, the media will tell us that the public delivered a mandate on issues. But what issues caused Asians and Latinos to vote against Obama? What issues caused evangelical Christians to vote against Romney?
---

Regarding Hilary taking the Coasts and Obama taking the heartland and the South: it is far more important for the Dems to nominate someone who can do well in the heartland and the South because those are the Democratic Party's weak areas. They are virtually guaranteed to win the coasts in November, but if Gore or Kerry could have swung just a couple Southern or Heartland states they would have won.

Same-same with the Republicans in reverse; which is why having McCain looking like he'll be the nomination is the pretty much the best possible outcome for them.

LaVeda H. Mason said...

This comment has been removed because it linked to malicious content. Learn more.

Mar said...

I am coming to think of the Obama/Clinton race as a gender issue, not a race issue. Obama is getting white male votes in far greater numbers than Clinton. Also, he is getting the votes of the young.

Like it or not, men don't like the idea of a woman running things. They will defer to their wives and mothers, but not other women, usually.

As far as the polls are concerned, they have been out of touch for years. I have read that there is minimal recruitment of their polling base among Hispanics. People under 30 are being ignored. African-Americans are under represented also.

Our family has been a giving opinions on candidates and products for decades. We like to do it because we know that our responses are on the liberal slope of the Bell curve. Yes, they use the same population repeatedly. When you are among the polled, some of the groups allow you to see the "raw" data, which is interesting. I think that the polling companies need to expand to the populations that are under represented for two reasons, their population ratios have been too low for some years, and they represent an declining majority. The rising minorities are the ones to watch.

I have been reading several conservative blogs. The definition of "real conservative" is brings out the worst in the people expressing their opinions there. McCain is seen as a "liberal." He is repeatedly accused of being a Democrat (a mighty insult). Bush has left conservatives in disarray with his spend on credit policies. The national debt, the number of deaths in a war that is unfocused (at best), the balance of civil liberties vs security, and immigration policies are deeply dividing the conservative side. It's getting rather shrill, in a he-man sort of way. No GOP candidate encompasses any common dream of a conservative base.

Watch for the group who followed Guilliani around and debunked his whole 9/11 pretense. These men seemed to be led by firefighters and police from NYC who were betrayed by Guilliani. I thought it would end when he quit the race, but they are going after McCain now. I read a prediction from the group that their next campaign would begin in a couple of weeks, which puts it, now, next week. They claim (and I hope so) that there is no swift boating involved, just real hard facts and extended video (not sound clips). These men say they are not conventional liberals or Democrats (as a whole), but citizens trying to take back the country from the liars.

Kukulkan said...

Mike Ralls: "Regarding Hilary taking the Coasts and Obama taking the heartland and the South: it is far more important for the Dems to nominate someone who can do well in the heartland and the South because those are the Democratic Party's weak areas. "

The good news here for Democrats is that exit polls indicate that people who voted for Sen. Clinton would be content to have Sen. Obama as President and vice versa. Democrats are excited by both of their two candidates. Senators Clinton and Obama have to avoid destroying this excitement through negative campaigning. On the other hand, Republicans are not excited about any of their candidates. As long as the Democratic candidates do not destroy the enthusiasm, Democratic voters will come out in much larger numbers for the Presidential election than will Republican voters. This election is the Democrats' to lose.

Mike Ralls said...

>Clinton and Obama have to avoid destroying this excitement through negative campaigning.<

It's tough to say. Obama has been steadily gaining momentum and the Clinton's do not respond to threats kindly and have already played the race card more than I'm comfortable with. Equating Obama with Jesse Jackson, sheesh. Maybe they'll make nice, and maybe they get nasty(er). We'll see.

> On the other hand, Republicans are not excited about any of their candidates.<

McCain. The canidate, unless he self-destructs, is McCain. The race is pretty much on to see who will be his VP at this point.

And no, the conservative base isn't that excited against him because he's as close to center as you can get and still win the Republican nomination. And that's a _good_ thing for the Republicans because he'll appeal to independents who are really crucial swing voters.

If Hilary is his opponents, then despite all their protests conservatives would turn out to vote for Bozo the Clown if he were running against Hilary because they have a serious dislike for the woman that transcends mere politics.

Obama would be the harder one to beat, but the results from Tuesday do show that he has a Latino problem, and if McCain can appeal to the Latino vote (highly possible) then he's got a shot.

Mike Ralls said...

> I have been reading several conservative blogs. The definition of "real conservative" is brings out the worst in the people expressing their opinions there. McCain is seen as a "liberal." He is repeatedly accused of being a Democrat (a mighty insult).<

McCain is less to the right than his prime Republican opponents. It makes sense that conservatives would not be for the least-conservative Republican candidates.

How would liberal blogs have screamed if a Blue Dog Democrat would have been the Democratic candidate for President?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Dog_Democrats

Mike Ralls said...

Oh, one big problem for the Dems that could spell some splitting would be Hillary winning on the backs of the getting the disqualified states votes to count. That could create some serious bad blood and resentment.

Anonymous said...

Congratulations Mr. Barnes, I am writing to let you know that your book Casanegra, co-authored with Blair Underwood and Tananarive Due has been chosen by Go On Girl! Book Club as our February 2008 reading selection. This marks the third time that your work has appeared on our reading list.

With 30 chapters in 12 states, Go On Girl! Book Club is one of the largest national reading organizations for Black women. I would like to send the official notification letter and more information on GOG. Please contact me at tsmithwd@aol.com.

Thank you!

Tracey Y. Smith
Go On Girl! Book Club

Mike Ralls said...

Oh, interesting demographic fact: Over 10% of Californian Democrats over the age of 60 voted for . . . John Edwards.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21225970

Why not just vote for FDR while they were at it?

AF1 said...

"It makes sense that conservatives would not be for the least-conservative Republican candidates."

And yet McCain is getting more votes than anybody else in the Repulican primaries.

Which would seem to indicate that "conservatives" are just a minority and don't speak for the entire party.

Frank said...

And yet McCain is getting more votes than anybody else in the Repulican primaries

Yes. I did an analysis of the Florida Republican Primary and who Republicans said they were. You can find it here

And it is pretty clear that Republicans are not who they think they are. They are also not who everyone else thinks they are.

Relevant to this comment, only 27% self-identified as Very Conservative ideologically. Out of those, 21% percent found McCain Conservative enough to vote for him.

34% of the Republicans voting considered themselves "Somewhat Conservative" and McCain won the majority of that constituency with 35%.

So 51% considered themselves Somwhat or Very Conservative. That leaves a lot of people who are Republicans to the left of that.

Then you add in the Independents, I mean real General Election Independents, and you have quite a pool from which McCain can draw.

Then you get to consider the Blue Dog Democrats who will not be comfortable with either Obama's or Clinton's security position and you see where it is by no means an election that is for the Democrats to lose.

One fact I found amusing is that almost as many Democrats as Republicans self-identified as "born again" Christians or evangelicals. And a startling 30% of Republicans claimed not to be Christians at all.

Steve Perry said...

When the ads for Rambo started to air, I noticed an amusing thing: With all the MTV smash-cuts and things going boom! you never got a look at Rambo, just a flash here and there. Just enough to recognize he was human.

Took me about ten seconds to figure it out: Stallone -- despite his growth-hormone/steroid breakfast-of-champions diet is still a sixty-year-old man. And that's no way what the teenage boys want to see on the screen kicking ass, somebody's *grampaw* ...

Vincent S. Moore said...

Steve,
I think the difference between the polls and the actuality may be best explained by the Bradley Effect.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bradley_effect

As for men not wanting a woman to be in charge, I will neither confirm or deny. I will say that Hillary herself worries me for unvoiceable reasons. Just a gut feeling I have about her. Now, if it were Diane Feinstein or Barbara Boxer, I'd be all for their candidacy.

Mark Jones said...

Obama is getting white male votes in far greater numbers than Clinton. Also, he is getting the votes of the young.

Like it or not, men don't like the idea of a woman running things. They will defer to their wives and mothers, but not other women, usually.


Or maybe the men voting for Obama don't want that woman running things. I know I don't. It has nothing to do with her gender and everything to do with her behavior. Forced to choose between Obama and Clinton, I'd pick Obama.

Forced to choose between McCain and either Obama or Clinton, you've described my nightmare scenario. Which, alas, is looking like it will come to pass in November.

asha vere said...

> Regarding Hilary taking the Coasts and Obama taking the heartland and the South: it is far more important for the Dems to nominate someone who can do well in the heartland and the South because those are the Democratic Party's weak areas. They are virtually guaranteed to win the coasts in November, but if Gore or Kerry could have swung just a couple Southern or Heartland states they would have won.

It also seemed that several of the states Obama won in the Democratic primary are Republican strongholds, so he's unlikely to be able to win them in the general election anyway. For example, isn't Alaska a heavily Republican state? And Georgia? Colorado? Idaho? And some of the others?

People will vote one way in a primary, but when it comes to the general, it's going to be harder for him to get -- and retain -- all those votes. Especially up against McCain, who has proven to be a champion independent vote-getter.

Dan Moran said...

I'm not surprised that white men are voting for Obama rather than Hillary. I predicted as much to begin with. Call it the "black CEO" effect ...

Dan Moran said...

If Hillary has to rely on the superdelegates to beat Obama at the convention, it will be a disaster for the party.

Ah, good old Ed Morrissey sees that the Democrats have lots of problems, and I admit, it's tough having two candidates almost everyone likes and has a hard time picking between.

Beats having a presumptive nominee that the party's base despises, I think.

Mike Ralls said,

Oh, one big problem for the Dems that could spell some splitting would be Hillary winning on the backs of the getting the disqualified states votes to count. That could create some serious bad blood and resentment.

As bad as what the Republican party's core feels for John McCain?

Marty S said...

I don't know which is more disturbing, that the analysts spend so much time analyzing the results by race or that the races actually vote so differently.

Nancy Lebovitz said...

For what it's worth, a commentator on NPR said that Clinton has been cultivating the Latino community for a long time, and Obama's been neglecting it.

Steven Barnes said...

Remember that a BIG chunk of the California vote were absentee ballots, sent in before the serious campaigning began. The Clintons had a well-oiled machine up and running already, as well as pre-existing relationships. Jeeze...I guess if I was finally gonna pay attention to politics, this was the time to do it. What a show!

Mike Ralls said...

> As bad as what the Republican party's core feels for John McCain?"

If it comes down to a convention and Hilary wins by dirty tricks, worse, much worse, IMO. There is bitching and moaning that _their_ canidate isn't going to get the nomination, but winning a fair fight in the primaries pisses people off differently than agreeing that delegates won't count and then using various shenanigans to get them counted or winning with unelected back room deals with superdelegates. The second takes away from legitimacy in a way the first doesn't.

I really think that the size and influence of either party's "core" is overestimated during the primary. Come the election, it's a race to the center, not the edges.

Frank said...

Mike Ralls

I really think that the size and influence of either party's "core" is overestimated during the primary. Come the election, it's a race to the center, not the edges.

Precisely. Well said

Dan Moran said...

"If it comes down to a convention and Hilary wins by dirty tricks, worse, much worse, IMO."

You can hope (and clearly you are), but I doubt it'll happen. They'll broker something before then.

Frank said...

Dan Moran

You can hope (and clearly you are), but I doubt it'll happen. They'll broker something before then.

You may be underestimating Clinton's desire to win (at any cost).

Breaking news from CPAC

Romney's out. His reason?
He wants to "do whatever it takes to be successful in Iraq,"

McCain stands alone, now and will address CPAC at 3 EST

Mike Ralls said...

>You can hope (and clearly you are),<

Never in my life (and I turn 30 in a few months) has a convention actually mattered, so yea, I'd be excited to see one that actually does.

> but I doubt it'll happen. They'll broker something before then.<

You know? You're probably right. The odds are probably against it, but it is still reall possibility.

I couldn't find any odds, but does anyone know if Vegas is taking any bets on if the Dems will go all the way to the convention? Vegas is usually pretty smart about such things.

And damn, I wish I would have put money on Obama back in '05

http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2005/11/28/132317/23

70-1 odds back then.