NithinCoca.com

Ready for more of the McSame?

One reason that the Obama campaign is winning is because of their excellent rapid response system. It wasn’t always this way, in actuality, the campaign began their rapid response “War Room” in October. Not coincidentally, about then was when he began to rise in the polls in Iowa.

This is important. This will matter this fall.

So, today, the Clinton campaign stooped to, perhaps, its lowest level of the campaign, releasing a sleazy, disgusting, fear mongering ad. Take a look.

For comparison, here is one of the most despicable ads from the Rove-Bush team, the “wolves ad”

John Kerry never effectively responded to the unfair, fear mongering attacks on his patriotism, his character, and his campaign, and it cost him the campaign.

Today, Barack Obama showed that he has learned the lesson of 2004.

His War room released, in less than 12 hours, a brilliant rebuttal ad. Watch below, is it, in my opinion, one of the best ads of the campaign. It fights back, is positive, and, most importantly, direct.

What does this mean? It means that this fall, we could have a candidate that will not let the Republicans throw any answered punches. That will fight back with all the resources at his disposal to counter, to respond, and to win the election. But first, we need to nominate Barack Obama as our nominee.

Make Phone Call to March 4th States and let’s stand up against fear mongering, attack style politics.

As we get closer to November, I thought it would be useful to examine the devil in modern politics. The wedge issue. What role will it have this fall, and will it once again doom Democrats chances for the White House?

What is a wedge issue? It’s simple. It’s an social or cultural issue that is meant to galvanize those voters who, based solely on economic factors, would vote Democratic. The wedge issues peels off these voters to the Republican side, scraping and collecting the most vulnerable voters from the working class, traditional Democratic base.

In my opinion, it all started in 1968 with the man who invented modern Republican campaigning (yes, campaigning, not ideology), Richard Millhouse Nixon, in his second attempt to win the White House against Vice President Hubert H Humphrey. In what many consider to be the most important election of the second half of the 20th century, Richard Nixon was able to eek out a small margin of victory and change the course of American history. That is where I’ll begin.

1968 Former VP Richard Nixon (R) vs. VP Hubert H. Humphrey (D) vs. Gov. George Wallace (I)

Wedge Issue(s): Crime and Fear, Busing

Effective: Yes. It was close in the popular vote (.5% difference) but not in the electoral college (301-191). Using the images of the chaos at the Democratic National Convention in Chicago, Nixon’s campaigned to prove that Democrats could not keep America safe, whether at home, or abroad with the growing chaos in Vietnam. Nixon siphoned off many disgruntled, Democratic voters especially in suburban area, and kept Humphrey on the defense. Of course, this isn’t the only reason he won, numerous other factors played into this race. But Crime and Fear, and to a lesser extend, the growing controversy over busing, helped Nixon throughout America to win a decisive Electoral College victory.

(more…)

Racial Rhetoric is taking front stage in the battle between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. Whether its surrogates opening their mouths too much, or a coordinated campaign is yet to be seen. Obama won Iowa and finished a close second in New Hampshire, two predominantly white states. Now, we’re off to Nevada, a diverse state with a large latino population, and South Carolina, where 50% of the electorate is African American.

On the other side, its all about Michigan. Kos and a few other prominent bloggers have started the “Democrats for Mitt.” Since Democrats have no one to vote for in Michigan (except Hillary) the idea is to get Democrats to crossover and “save” the Romney campaign, breathing life and helping further throw the GOP race in chaos. Sounds good to me, does that mean next, we aim for a Fred Thompson comeback in South Carolina?

On our side, its off to Nevada. New polls show a close race, but how reliable are polls these days? Exactly.

And a shout out to Chargers fans everywhere…bring on the Patriots!

The media narratives are out. The Clinton’s, once again the Comeback Kids, the race is thrown into disarray. With New Hampshire and Iowa finished, and we have no idea who will be the nominee on either side of the aisle, no clear frontrunner on either side.

So let me take a few of the media narratives and throw in some facts. You know, the basic elements of TRUTH and Reporting?

Crossposted at Dailykos

1) The Pollsters Messed Up Completely

LiveScience.com has a great article on what actually happened with the polls. The mainstream media (MSM) wants to show a different narrative, though, that Clinton came back from impossible odds. That Obama lost his support at the last minute. But let’s look at the pre-Iowa and post-Iowa numbers from Real Clear Politics.

Pre-Iowa (Jan 1-2)
Clinton: 34.4
Obama: 26.3
Edwards: 19.2

Post Iowa (Jan 4-5)
Obama: 38.3
Clinton: 30.0
Edwards: 18.3

The Pollsters got two of the three right - Obama’s total, and Edwards total. They failed miserably in getting Clinton’s total correct, understating her support by a large 9%, far outside the MOE. It looks as if most of the undecideds turned to her in the last day, and exit polls agree.

2) Post-Iowa: Clinton Surged, Obama Didn’t

Obama DID surge. Look above at his pre-Iowa poll numbers. He finished with 37%, a healthy 11 point bump from Iowa. The story is Clinton ALSO getting a bump, moving up 5 points after Iowa, and Edwards receiving absolutely no bump from his 2nd place finish. I turn to fladem’s great analysis of post-Iowa bumps. Clinton recieved the typical second place bump of about 5 points, and Obama got a slightly below average first place bump of 11 points. If you notice, Fladem’s projected NH results based on if Obama came in first in Iowa, Clinton 2nd, and Edwards 3rd closely matches what actually occurred.

Clinton refused to concede second place to Edwards, and with the media acquiscence, stole the mantle of second place from Edwards. Edwards attempts to built momentum and make it a two person race failed, and he faltered into third far behind the top two finishers.

3) Edwards is Toast

It is true that Edwards recieved almost no momentum from Iowa, and as a result, he’s getting almost no media coverage now. But we’ve heard this story before. New Hampshire has a history of voting against Southerners. Look at Clinton in 1992, or just across the ballet, at Huckabee and Thompson. Yet Huckabee isn’t considered dead after finished WORSE than Edwards. I expect Edwards to regroup and come back strong in South Carolina, which he won in 2004, perhaps once again upending Clinton for second place.

Conclusion

All day yesterday, I had a bad feeling about New Hampshire. And I was right. However, I think this is a good think for Barack Obama. I think we became complacent, not working hard to beat Clinton’s field operation as we worked hard and throughly in Iowa. Now, we won’t take anything for granted, you can guarantee that, and our volunteers, field staff, and political team will be relentless until we wrap up the nomination. An interesting side effect of this is that now, Nevada matters. And that is a good thing for the Democratic Party, that a Western state with a large Latino population will matter, and I for one cannot wait to see if we can Barack the Caucus one more time.

The format is a bit dull. Not a single person has confronted anyone else, unless you consider Joe Biden joking about Bill Richardson being color blind a “confrontation”, or Barack Obama telling Hillary (in jest) that “I’m looking forward to having you advise me in my administration.”

From right to left, according to PBS’s stage placements. Do you think they purposely put Barack and Hillary on opposite sides?

Hillary Clinton: Mediocre. Hasn’t said anything that stands out, hasn’t rebutted anything that Edwards or Obama have said, and I honestly can’t remember anything that was much of a soundbite. On the plus side, not attacking Obama does hep her put some distance on the disgraceful drugs comment from her NH Co-chair yesterday.

John Edwards: He has been creating some mighty rhetoric, creating a sense of urgency. He has been speaking about battling the Corporations, the special interests. He has spent a lifetime winning these fights? What about that fight against George W. Bush when you were Kerry’s VP nominee? And, as someone who watches these things a lot, Edwards repeats himself more than anyone else, except perhaps Richardson.

Chris Dodd: The dud. Even on the 30 second personal statement he didn’t look rehearsed. He looks tired, and like he is balding (anyone else notice that?). Joe Biden has certainly taken the rug from underneath him, he can’t even make the experience argument anymore, and he doesn’t answer the question - why am I running for President? What happened to the Constitution?

Joe Biden: He had the answer of the night when the moderator accused him, basically, of being racially insensitive. He’s having a great performance, especially towards to the end of the debate, but he does at times sound like a policy work, and tends to get into Senate-speak.

Barack Obama: He sounds prepared. Less “umm”’s, and less hesitation than in previous experiences. One of his best performances because he looks and sounds Presidential, up to par with Biden and Clinton, but his rhetoric isn’t as fiery as Edwards.