South Carolina Open Thread

Some thoughts:

1.  I could have been a Dem strategist - Josh Marshall is delivering today the explanation for Hillary's attempt to seat Michigan and Florida that I gave yesterday, to wit, it puts her likely win in Florida on the front page.

2.  Bill Clinton continues to attempt to marginalize Obama as the special-interest black candidate:

7:10 p.m. | It Takes Two In a chat with reporters today in Columbia, Bill Clinton was asked what it said about Mr. Obama that it “took two people to beat him,” a reference to Mr. Clinton’s running with his wife.

“That’s’ just bait, too,” Mr. Clinton said. “Jesse Jackson won South Carolina twice, in ‘84 and ‘88. And he ran a good campaign. Senator Obama’s run a good campaign here, he’s run a good campaign everywhere.”

This is being widely interpreted by TV pundits as further evidence that Mr. Clinton is trying to marginalize Mr. Obama’s win in South Carolina.

Let's have some benchmarking - here is the Times (from 1988) telling us about Mr. Jackson's experiences in South Carolina:

Party leaders said Mr. Jackson polled well in many predominantly white precincts. They estimated he won 5 percent to 10 percent of the white vote on Saturday, compared to almost none in 1984.

3.  Bill Clinton was a net negative to his wife if we believe these exit polls [but see point 6 - Hillary does less badly among the folks who thought Bill was important]:

(CNN) — Bill Clinton's aggressive campaigning in South Carolina in the days leading up to the state's primary may have had a negative effect among South Carolina’s Democratic primary voters, CNN exit polls indicate.

Roughly 6 in 10 South Carolina Democratic primary voters said Bill Clinton's campaigning was important in how they ultimately decided to vote, and of those voters, 47 percent went for Barack Obama while only 38 percent went for Hillary Clinton. Fourteen percent of those voters voted for John Edwards

Meanwhile, the exit polls also indicate Obama easily beat Clinton among those voters who decided in the last three days — when news reports heavily covered the former president's heightened criticisms of Obama. Twenty percent of South Carolina Democrats made their decision in the last three days and 57 percent of them chose Obama, while only 18 percent picked Clinton.

He won't shut up simply because it is the right thing to do but maybe an appeal to his self-interest will be effective.  KIDDING!  Wild Bill will be more visible than ever, determined to prove he hasn't lost that old magic (even if he is losing every Times columnist).  The nice thing about these endless campaigns is that eventually a person's real character emerges; that won't help the HillBillys.

BUT THEN AGAIN!  Maybe Hillary re-launches her campaign with a "Hubby Souljah" moment.  How many Americans would rise up and cheer if she just slapped the fool?

4.  CNN exit polls.  Obama got about 24% of the white vote and 80% of the black vote, which is a lot more diverse than Jackson.  But is it diverse enough for the media to get off this "he's the black candidate" thing?  Tricky - they (sorry, "they") want to feel good about backing a black while pretending his race has nothing to do with their support.

5.  Should we start with the "Why were the polls so wrong" recriminations?  The last Zogby had Obama with 41, Clinton with 26, and Edwards with 19, with 10% undecided.

The exit poll has Obama at 54, Clinton at 27, and Edwards at 18.  So it looks like all the undecided went for Obama.  One might have expected some unreconstructed whites and some angry blacks to have given a faux "undecided" answer, but it appears it was all Obama supporters laying in the weeds.

Can the pollsters deliver an "undecided" breakdown by race?

6.  IT DEPENDS ON THE MEANING OF "IMPORTANT":

Re Wild Bill's impact, Hillary lost by less with the group that considered his campaigning to be important.

58% of respondents said Bill's campaigning was important; Hillary lost this group by 37-48.
But in the 42% who said his effort was not important, she lost by 13-62.

Last straw in wind - in the subset that said Bill was "very important" (26% of respondents) Hillary actually won, 46-43.

Comments

[Sue]

BUT THEN AGAIN! Maybe Hillary re-launches her campaign with a "Hubby Souljah" moment. How many Americans would rise up and cheer if she just slapped the fool?

Hell, if she did that, the way I feel about the republican candidates, I must just vote for her.

[Ann]

I would only be impressed if they both slapped each other!

[Ann]

Caroline Kennedy to endorse OBAMA.

Other Tom, I think that Washington Times article you linked to has some legs!

[Cecil Turner]

Bill Clinton was a net negative to his wife if we believe these exit polls:

That's what the politicalticker claimed, but sorry, it doesn't follow. Per that exit poll link, she was a loser amongst the "important" crowd (48 to 37) . . . but an even bigger loser amongst the "not important" crowd (62 to 13). Have to say Bill helped, just not enough.

[Other Tom]

Hope you're right, Ann. In an ideal world, where the press were really the Watchdogs of the First Amendment, the next time Kerry appears before the press someone would say, "Senator, what was in the Barrett Report?" Don't hold your breath...

I know I tend to think this every four years, but this time I believe the campaign will be more fascinating than ever. This time we will get to see whether, over the next ten months, the country will really, truly reach a consensus that this vile pair simply cannot be allowed to be in the White House, or anywhere near it, ever again.

[Other Tom]

I read those numbers differently, Cecil. Suppose it's the case that Bubba's behavior altered the votes of the "important" crowd, but didn't alter those of the others. If that's true, she's a net loser for having had him there.

[Tom Maguire]

she was a loser amongst the "important" crowd (48 to 37) . . . but an even bigger loser amongst the "not important" crowd (62 to 13). Have to say Bill helped, just not enough.

That is a very interesting point. Of course, one might wonder, what does the question mean - Bill's presence was important in reminding me how much I loathed him?

And who is going to admit that voted for Obama because of Bill?

So I guess the arguement is, she lost by less among the "important" crowd, so he helped, but not enough to get her to victory.

[vnjagvet]

With 86% of the vote, Obama wins 54% TO 27% over RW.

Where I come from, that is a skunking. And this was a three way race.

The Clintons are great spinners. I will be watching for my spinning lessons this week, because they will have to be the best lessons ever.

[PaulL]

We won't know until Feb 5th whether the Clintons' plan to set white voters against Obama was successful or not.

[vnjagvet]

Maybe not, Paul. But the first bit of evidence is not particularly favorable to that tactic. Wouldn't you agree with that?

[windansea]

you had me until that last line

great post TM

[vnjagvet]

The Obama speech is wholly against the "Bush Administration".

Interesting.........

[PaulL]

vnjagvet,

If the plan is as suspected, the loss of South Carolina was a planned sacrifice, to set up Obama as the black candidate. The Clintons did not want to win SC.

[vnjagvet]

Maybe a loss, Paul, but not that big a loss.

The internals are not particularly helpful to their overall strategy.

BHO and his staff is well-prepared for this tactic and will have an answer.\

This campaign will be studied as much as the 1960 campaign has been studied for years to come.

The dynamics are fluid and fascinating.

[Rick Ballard]

I believe that FL may be in play for BHO. SUSA blew their turnout model for blacks in SC and therefore blew BHO's margin by a nifty 100%. In FL, SUSA is showing RW with a 17 point lead but if you bump the black percentage to where it was in SC (black = 28.6% of VEP but 55% of the vote), then the black vote (15.4% VEP) could account for 30% of the total. If blacks broke for BHO 4/1 in FL as they did in SC, it would cut that 17 points down to 5 points - without any bounce. If the Jewish vote (4% VEP - probable 6-7% of total vote) breaks along the liberal/over $50K lines as it did in SC then Broom I ain't going to be making any victory loops in FL.

[Sue]

On some of the blogs, the big story is the turnout. Versus republican turnout. Lots of reasons are being given for that, from we hurt ourselves in the immigration debate to a purity war. Personally, I think there is one factor that is driving the democrats to the polls. Obama. He is a rock star. Who are we going to get excited over? I suspect that if Obama pulls off an upset and is the nominee, it won't matter who we run.

[Pofarmer]

One of these days somebody on the Dem ticket is gonna figure out neither Bush or Cheney are running for anything.

That should be an interesting day.

[vnjagvet]

Here's the deal:

Obama is slicing and dicing the RW. He is now making what sales professionals call the "assumptive close". His victory speech tonight did not address the Clintons or their strategy. He began fighting the general election war. This is a turning point for his rhetoric. It was very inclusive as far as the "us" was concerned.

Latinos, whites, blacks, etc., etc.

It was exclusive, on the other hand as the "them" was concerned. "Them" was those who are keeping "us" down. Classic. He was adopting the basic rhetoric of Edwards and turning it on the supporters of the Bush Admin.

For purposes of the speech, he assumed he would beat the Clintons without even referring to them.

Pretty astonishing.

[Ann]

Where is Hillary? We have seen Bill with a crowd behind him that looked like they were paided, we have heard from Two Americas, and we have heard from Obama with a crowd behind him that looked unbeatable.

Interesting, well here she comes... and the crowd looks small and mostly black.....hmmmmmmm.

[Porchlight]

There were only three non-demographic questions asked in the exit poll (at least as far as I can figure from CNN's site): Most Likely to Beat Republican Nominee, Importance of Bill Clinton Campaigning, and Most Qualified to be Commander-In-Chief.

Does anyone else find it odd that "Importance of Bill Clinton campaigning" was one of these three questions? Why would a news organization ask about a specific candidate's campaign tactics in an exit poll?

I don't normally read exit polls too closely, so maybe these types of questions are common. But it looks to me like the Clinton News Network is doing Hillary's work for her by actively trying to determine if she needs to ditch Bill.

[Ann]

she is thanking the band.( okee dokee). Did Bill give her concession speech? She really has no class and no shame. The big question is will she cry?

[Jane]

For purposes of the speech, he assumed he would beat the Clintons without even referring to them.

Good for him.

[narciso]

So the polls were wrong again; this time to a degree higher than any margin of error. It turns out Hillary only got a quarter of
the White Democrat vote; that's the beginnning of her problem.

Now that's out of the way; I see that Christ is endorsing McCain; that's an exciting new. . .Sorry I dozed off there. Christ promised to fix the insurance mess,
(he hasn't; infact, he's cutting off Allstate's access to the insurance market, that's all right, we have plenty of other
insurance carr. . )He promised to cut property taxes, he's being stalled pretty much all the way, by a mostly Democrat, everyone's going to die campaign. He is letting felons vote, I can't tell you how much, that warms the cockles of my heart
(irony)He's let state universities send money to Fidel. In short, he's the real
version of the caricature you think Romney
is. Rudy's been given up for dead; mostly thanks to the Politico & NY Times out
sourcing the DNC's Segretti rumor mongering task force; their latest example was a memo
debating on keeping the emergency command center at WTC;) Obvious question, where else
were they going to keep it considering the
location of the Port Authority, and other
facilities; At One Federal Plaza; where
they almost bombed in 1993; it was dramatized in the 1998 film, "The Siege".

[JM Hanes]

Cecil:

"Per that exit poll link, she was a loser amongst the "important" crowd (48 to 37) . . . but an even bigger loser amongst the "not important" crowd (62 to 13). Have to say Bill helped, just not enough."

Aren't you essentially assuming that absent Bill's participation, the baseline would would have been 62 to 13 against Hillary -- which he therefore improved. While it may not be entirely likely, it's certainly possible that the folks who were listening to Bill were already predisposed to vote for Hillary. He could, at least conceivably, have depressed her vote among that group, no?

[Sue]

Drudge has a picture of Obama (and Michelle) and Bill Clinton. Angrily shaking his finger. Where's Hillary?

[Clarice]

Interesting discussion on the "Important" question. I must say half the time I don't understand what the poll questions are asking. The other times, I find none of the possible answers adequate.

As for this remark by TM:"The nice thing about these endless campaigns is that eventually a person's real character emerges; that won't help the HillBillys."----

I couldn't agree more, but then I love classic literature where that is always the basic theme:Character is destiny.

[Rick Ballard]

"Where's Hillary?"

If she steps out of the pentagram before midnight the hex won't work.

[Sue]

Rick,

::grin::

But what is the subliminal message? Is it pro-Obama or pro-Bill? Are they trying to make the point that SC doesn't matter? Especially since the lead above the picture is Bill compares win to Jesse Jackson winning SC?

[Rick Ballard]

Sue,

My take on the purpose of the question is that it was to show tha Bubba is important, not whether he was a positive or negative influence. The ambiguous wording is very deliberate - Bubba's gonna stay on stage regardless and this question provides "proof" as to why he is needed.

All it would take to make the question mean something is the addition of one or two adjectives. Many questions in the whole poll is loaded toward Bubba and the Beast - like that's a surprise.

[Rick Ballard]

"is loaded" = "are loaded"

Perveiw is just killing me today. No matter how many times I click that button it never fixes a damn thing.

[Clarice]

Hillary will now pull every trick in the book to get the nomination and I predict, a recolution in her party.

[Other Tom]

I always thought character was destiny too, but I got pretty much disabused of that notion in 1992, 1996, and the Monica stuff in 1998.

Some of the heads on Fox were suggesting that it's mandatory that Hillary (who everyone still thinks will be the nominee) pick Obama as her running mate, if she wants to win. If she does so, will he accept? If he doesn't, it won't be because of any enmity aroused by the campaign (much, much worse has been overcome in past VP choices), but he might have tactical reasons to decline it. But if he does accept, what then?

[Other Tom]

Clarice, my immediate question was, "by 'recolution,' does she mean 'resolution' or 'revolution?'" I'm guessing you meant the latter--right? (I sure hope that's what you meant, and that you're correct.)

[Clarice]

Revocution..I'm sorry. the c and v keys are too close together.(Channeling Hill by finding all the fault outside myself.)
In the character is destiny thingy,OT..it's EVENTUALLY, not always immediately unless you simply fan the pages in the book real fast.

[Clarice]

Gosh damn REVOLUTION--

[JM Hanes]

Ann:

"I would only be impressed if they both slapped each other!"

Hill would actually have to divorce Bill to make an impression on me.

[Ralph L]

I see that Christ is endorsing McCain
I thought Huckabee had that endorsement. What a liar!

[Clarice]

jmh, It's time we organize an effort to encourage Bill to stay in the campaign. I'm looking at tomorrow's headlines and seeing a lot of know-nothing buttinsky's saying he should retire from the field.

[Les Nessman]

Other Tom

"But if he does accept, what then?"

If he does accept, then we will have two of the most inexperienced neophytes in contention for the top spots. God help us, they just might win.

Also, God help us; we have TEN MORE MONTHS of this electioneering crap. Will the American people eventually get tired of it all?

[Other Tom]

If I were a sportswriter, I'd say that the Vile Fishwife has just absorbed a savage drubbing.

My hope is that her breathtakingly amoral and corrupt husband has just been rebuked in a way that even he must have to acknowledge, in his heart of hearts.

And although I'm not a praying man, I do pray that Clarice is right that charcter will finally, in the end, trump all else, and that that end is this year. Seeing that pair denied everything they care about would restore a great deal of lost faith for me.

[Sue]

LOL. I was going to go find a dictionary to see what recolution was. Clarice is always throwing out words that would impress O'Reilly. I just assumed this was another instance.

[Other Tom]

That's a good question, Les. Every four years since about 1988 I've told myself that never again will I let myself get so wrapped up in this crap, but each and every time I do just that. Then after 2000 I said "that's it--providence has granted me the final wish I dare to ask for, and from now on I won't pay any attention to it all.

But here we are again, and this time it seems more intense and fatiguing than ever.

[Other Tom]

Jesus--what to make of this, from the Sunday Telegraph:

"Bill Clinton will play a bigger role in his wife Hillary's election campaign than her vice presidential running mate if she wins the Democratic White House nomination, The Sunday Telegraph has learned. In late night strategy sessions Mr and Mrs Clinton have decided together that the former president will stay in the spotlight for the rest of the primary campaign and then take the fight to the Republicans in the general election."

Could we have asked for better news? And if you were Obama, would you want to be on that ticket? Would anybody?

[Clarice]

I could not have asked for better news--and since Bill's a masochist who has to keep f***ing up to test if we really love him, I'm really certain he'll be a non-stop disaster.
If I were Obama ,I'd stay far away from them.

There's already talk that a lot of the super delegates already pledged to her might be having second thoughts. If they try to bolt, Bill and Hillary will go all out with threats, etc. If they stay with her and Obama has the popular support but not the delegates (because of this super delegate system) the party will explode.Oh, and I haven't even gone into what happens to those Dem steppin fetchits like Rangel and the bought ministers at this point. Lots of scales have to be dropping from lots of eyes.

But then I'm a cock eyed optimist.

[Sue]

If I were Obama, I'd think twice about accepting the VP slot if Hillary pulls out a win. And I'll point to Gore as to why he needs to think twice.

[bc]

And now we got trouble, right here in River City, that starts with T and that rhymes with P and that stands for (dirty) pool!.

[Thom]

The Clinton campaign went to a great deal of time and trouble and expense to get 26% of South Carolina's voters aware enough of Bill Clinton's March through South Carolina to say Bill's campaigning was "very important" in determining their vote. When a campaign makes a special effort to reach voters, it's in the hopes that those reached will wind up overwhelmingly in your camp. To find now that Hillary barely split those who say Bill's campaigning was very important in their decisionmaking (Hillary 46%, Obama 42%) marks this as, let's say, an inefficient use of Clinton campaign resources.
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/epolls/#SCDEM

[JM Hanes]

Looks like I posted on a Hill/Obama reconciliation in the wrong thread.

Obama, the unity candidate, may not be willing to get down and really dirty with Hillary, but I hope that the Republicans will have no such scruples. Unfortunately, McCain looks really sophomoric when he takes pot shots at the competition -- and I can also see him being dumb enough to come to some sort of gentleman's agreement with Hill, and then whining his way through the rest of the campaign about how she's breaking her promises. Sigh.

If it's McCain, I just hope he can rustle up a high profile surrogate, because almost any Republican bad cop worth his salt could make Bill Clinton explode on camera on everyday from now till November.

[Cecil Turner]

Aren't you essentially assuming that absent Bill's participation, the baseline would would have been 62 to 13 against Hillary -- which he therefore improved.

No, I'm just reading Hillary's vote percentages relative to how folks rated Bill's importance.

        [rating | Hill | Obama]

Very Important      46%  43%           

Somewhat Important  30%  51%           

Not Too Important   16%  60%           

Not ImportantAtAll  10%  63%

As Bill's importance goes up, Hillary's percentage goes with it. Assuming the average is somewhere there in the middle . . . he helps her. I'd also point out the only grouping that results in a net Hillary loss with some level of "Bubba importance" is the one they made. It's borderline dishonest.

TM's point is valid: there's no telling how the Bill treatment affected the overall population, and the exit poll answers may well not have been responsive. But to claim the data shows his campaigning had a negative effect (as the Mooney article suggested) is simply faulty.

[Thom]

Cecil:

True dat, the more likely a voter was to say his or her decision was affected by Bill's campaigning, the more likely the voter was in Hillary's camp. That's not the point. Her advantage is just not nearly big enough among those who say Bill's performance was "very important" to them. Bill's performance was, in theory, designed to win over people who considered what he said an important thing to consider in deciding how to vote. You hope you win those people who say your words are "very important" to them by 2-to-1, or 3-to-1 or more. Bill barely won a split decision among those voters for his wife's candidacy. That's an inefficient effort, a poor ROI.

[Other Tom]

Should we really conclude that all, or even most of, those who said Bill's role was "very important" to them would have voted differently, but for that role? Couldn't his importance have been in buttressing their views of Hillary, whether pro or con? It's hard for me to believe that in the nation at large--only SC voted, but the whole country watched--he hasn't harmed her candidacy, and considerably.

Bubba's even got Frank Rich (up in the Big Apple) pondering the dimensions of the disaster the husband is causing for the wife.

I sure hope Sue is right about Obama declining any offer from her. He's got a very long political career in front of him, and there are damn few people who have ever benefited from getting in bed with this couple. Look at the trail of eighteen felony convictions in Whitewater: Bill and Hillary skate right along, and never pause to look back at the wreckage. You think Web Hubbell ever gets a card from them?

[Jane]

because almost any Republican bad cop worth his salt could make Bill Clinton explode on camera on everyday from now till November.

Now that would be a fun job.

[PeterUK]

OT.
Latest Telegrsph
Sit him down with a few beers,light the blue touch pare and retire. oh yes! Perhaps a question like "Your wife says you lost this one for her,ant comment?"

[Sue]

Hillary may pull the nomination out of her hat when all is said and done, but the Yahoo headline will keep smiling for a few days.

Obama Routs Clinton in South Carolina.

::grin::

[Tom Maguire]

Aren't you essentially assuming that absent Bill's participation, the baseline would would have been 62 to 13 against Hillary -- which he therefore improved. While it may not be entirely likely, it's certainly possible that the folks who were listening to Bill were already predisposed to vote for Hillary. He could, at least conceivably, have depressed her vote among that group, no?

Hmm - I think I agree with everything said here. My conclusion is, GIGO - an ambiguous question yielded an ambiguous result. We don't have a baseline, so we can;t say for sure that Clinton helped, but we also can't say, as CNN did, that he hurt.

Silly example - suppose George Washington, Abraham Lincoln and Ronald Reagan came back next week (Three ex-Presidents walk into a bar...) and endorse Ron Paul. He spikes from 5% to 30% in Florida but still loses to Romney.

DO we look at exit polls saying that even those who thought the endorsements were important voted for Romney and conclude they were a net negative?

I think CNN is waving a poll to support what they (and I) believe for other reasons - Wild Bill was a disaster.

[Jane]

don't worry, I know how to stop that italics thingy.

[Sue]

Wild Bill was a disaster.

Was he? I just read the story at Yahoo with the headline Obama Routs Clinton. Wild Bill did his job, I think, in defining Obama as another black candidate. The democratic party should be ashamed of themselves, but they won't be. At the end of the day, they will still be the party of diversity. ::sigh::

[Thom]

Mostly, Tom is right. It was a badly designed, ambiguous question the yields confusing results. Set aside the results and go with your gut instincts--Bill hurt H-Rod in any number of ways, short term and long term, with his undisciplined S.C. performance.

[C H]

Please remember the 1994 Republican Contract with America. After "40 years" of Democratic control of the houses, the Republican gained control...Why? Because of two people...Bill and Hillary Clinton. The Democrats are barely holding a lead right now in the houses.
70% of the people are against the war. This includes Republicans. I am a Republican. I am against the war. To win an election, you will need support from both sides. Let's end this war together, but it will not happen if Hillary Clinton is on the ticket. Republicans will united and fight against any Clinton on the ticket. We have had 20 years of Clinton-Bush in the White House, let's make a change.

Please remind people of '94!

[laptop battery]

http://www.batteryfast.com/toshiba/satellite-2430.htm>toshiba satellite 2430 battery