April 23, 2008
Holding Serve (John Feehery)
So Hillary Clinton held serve last night. She won in a state where she should have won, by a margin that was comfortable enough for her.
The good news for Sen. Clinton (D-N.Y.) is that her opponent, Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.), spent a lot of money to lose by nine points. The bad news is that he still has a lot of money.
Holding serve is not good enough for Clinton. She has to break Obama’s serve in North Carolina, and then hope that he pulls up lame before the convention. If not, he will win the nomination.
For the McCain campaign, the Democratic primary is a good place to observe where Obama is strong and where he is weak.
Obama has a strong serve. He is a good speaker on the stump. His speeches flow by with speed and grace. The rhetoric flows by so fast, you almost can’t catch up to it.
Obama also has strong ground strokes. He has raised more money than any other candidate in history, and he has done that by combining the power of the Internet with a clever viral marketing campaign that has energized the young and many baby boomers.
But Obama has a weak backhand. In fact, he has backhanded the traditional strength of the Democratic Party, the Reagan Democrats. He does poorly with senior citizens, with Catholics and with white ethnics. He will be weak in the Rust Belt, and he won’t do well in Appalachian areas, such as Kentucky, Tennessee and West Virginia. Republicans should still hold the Solid South and much of the West.
Obama also has little tournament experience. We don’t know how he will hold up under the pressure of a real campaign, with real issues. Hillary Clinton is reputedly a tough opponent, but she agrees with Obama on just about every issue.
This means three things for McCain.
First, he needs to study Obama’s viral marketing model closely. McCain will never be the young candidate, but he can’t afford to be the old candidate. He needs to gather together the best marketing minds out there to find other ways to market himself and to raise money.
Second, he needs to continue to target Catholic voters. They are the ultimate swing vote, and they are gettable for McCain.
Third, he needs to keep the pressure on Obama, especially on issues that haven’t been raised so far. This is Obama’s first visit to the big show. Let’s see how he reacts under pressure.
At the end of the day, Obama just needs to keep holding serve and he will beat Clinton. But it’s a new match with McCain, and I like the veteran’s chances.
Permalink TrackBack
Email This Post
Share this post
What's This 7 Comments
»
The Hill welcomes comment from anyone and will almost always post it whether it is favorable or critical, as long as it is substantive and advances debate.
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
Today’s market performance, with the dividend paying stocks, which would be severely damaged by either Democrat (Wal-Mart up $2.5, etc., and not just the financials which had another explanation) , showing the most significant gains is a vote of confidence in the defeat of the Marxist tax-and-spenders.
Comment by Yuseff Nuttin — April 23, 2008 @ 11:57 am
Kinda weird to see my old comment repeated here by Yuseff above for no apparent reason, but anyway.
The Dems have been damaged by the Operation Chaos beyond repair. All McCain has to do is not screw up and he'll win.
Comment by Igor R. — April 23, 2008 @ 2:23 pm
"The Dems have been damaged by the Operation Chaos beyond repair. All McCain has to do is not screw up and he’ll win.
Comment by Igor R. — April 23, 2008 @ 2:23 pm"
Breathtaking. Igor has just endorsed Rush's election fraud tactics.
On second thought, I don't know why I should be surprised.
Comment by Jim Martin — April 24, 2008 @ 2:39 am
Jim, doing something legal in full view of everyone is hardly fraud. McCain was picked by liberals and independents, and while I regret how that went, it was hardly fraud either.
Comment by Igor R. — April 24, 2008 @ 2:53 pm
"Jim, doing something legal in full view of everyone is hardly fraud. McCain was picked by liberals and independents, and while I regret how that went, it was hardly fraud either.
Comment by Igor R. — April 24, 2008 @ 2:53 pm"
Bzzt.
It's a felony.
From Wired Magazine's Threat Level blog:
"Ohio's revised election code includes an election falsification clause (Revised Code 3513.20), which says that if a voter who changes parties is challenged by poll workers as to the sincerity of his change of heart and also signs an affidavit stating that he supports the principles of the party to which he's changing — when in fact he doesn't support them — then he would be committing election falsification. Election falsification is a felony that is punishable by six to twelve months in jail and a $2,500 fine."
http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/03/did-ohio-crosso.html
And from the Cleveland Plain Dealer:
"The Cuyahoga County Board of Elections has launched an investigation that could lead to criminal charges against voters who maliciously switched parties for the March 4 presidential primary.
"Elections workers will look for evidence that voters lied when they signed affidavits pledging allegiance to their new party….
"After the election, some local Republicans admitted they changed parties only to influence which Democrat would face presumed Republican nominee John McCain in November. One voter scribbled the following addendum to his pledge as a new Democrat: 'For one day only.'
"Such an admission amounts to voter fraud, said [Board of Elections member Sandy] McNair, who pushed for the investigation. …
"Lying on the signed statement is a fifth-degree felony, punishable by six to 12 months in jail and a $2,500 fine."
http://blog.cleveland.com/openers/2008/03/_the_brazen_attitude_of.html
Thanks for playing, though, Igor.
Comment by Jim Martin — April 25, 2008 @ 3:21 am
Jim, I knew about the statute as it was highly publicized by Rush, who was also threatened with prosecution. I consider this unconstitutional, and BTW, how many people were prosecuted Jim?
Comment by Igor R. — April 25, 2008 @ 1:37 pm
Nice try, Igor.
In post # 3, I mentioned Rush's election fraud tactics. In response, you claimed that what these Operation Chaos voters were doing was (1) legal and (2) "in full view of everyone."
I demonstrated that it's illegal under Ohio law.
As for "in full view of everyone," is it your contention that these Operation Chaos voters were lying in full view of everyone? Care to explain that?
The question is not the constitutionality of the Ohio statute. The question is fraud. The question is not the number of people prosecuted. The question is fraud. Lying on an affidavit is fraud.
"1. deceit, trickery, sharp practice, or breach of confidence, perpetrated for profit or to gain some unfair or dishonest advantage."
– fraud. (n.d.). Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1). Retrieved April 28, 2008, from Dictionary.com website: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/fraud
Care to dispute that?
Keep moving the goalposts, Igor. Eventually you'll move them right off a cliff.
Comment by Jim Martin — April 28, 2008 @ 5:17 pm