veepstakes: it burns.
538 blog:
"last night, I texted Nate about something, and he replied "*%^$, I thought that was Obama's text." And when he texted me back to say that, I stopped mid-pee to grab my phone. Veepwatch: it burns."
Ah, ho ho. Anyways, among the indicators that this election is is making its mark in history is the long sordid affair of party unity. Coming off a massive Democratic primary with massive turnout numbers, Obama and Clinton have generated a lot of emotional ties to their supporters. How could party unity be an issue in a super-primary with huge turnout numbers with a hated hardliner Republican president in office? I suppose the answer now seems obvious. I once thought that the people who said they'd never vote for Clinton seemed like fringe freaks and one-off fatalists. And they are. But those emotional bonds between the hardline supporters is blood.
The core of the party is always a media talking point, but this year it actually has teeth. Obama picks anyone with any hint of a pro-life stance and half the normally consistent base suddenly turns into an apathetic collapsed lung on election day. The simple equation is whether the number of Clinton supporters he loses is increased by the undecided he picks up by adding a moderate to the ticket - which in and of itself is a risky proposition alone, much less adding the complexities of state-by-state undecided counts, polls, and the primary results.
Which is one point: the President is elected by states, not national popular vote, much less the national polls... for good or ill.
But that's not what Obama's really counting on for his candidacy. He's invested nearly all his money into his ground campaign. The biggest door-to-door effort in history. That hope message is pretty cold and distant coming across the HDTV. No, it'll only really work face to face, with people you have some connection to. Obama's campaign has, since its inception, been nearly flawless in its execution.
What does bother me are the numbers in MN, a state similar to us in WI and IA. Obama doesn't seem to be making an effort to turn around the falling numbers in those states. Candidates can't wait to work up through a deficit shortfall in the critical states Kerry won in 04. Luckily, McCain somehow doesn't know how many houses he owns, a baffling good break.
CNN seems to be hacked together at the moment with odd pauses and missing tape cues falling over each other waiting for their text message. Bill Richardson is twitching strangely. He'd rather not talk about how he's not the VP. Fox News is running a live feed of a light illuminating a dark window into the Biden home. That's pretty fucking pathetic. Biden's a good choice, and a safe bet, but I'm sticking with the returns on Sebelius. Kaine is out, I feel, and Bayh just doesn't seem to share any of the qualities of either Biden or Sebelius.
"last night, I texted Nate about something, and he replied "*%^$, I thought that was Obama's text." And when he texted me back to say that, I stopped mid-pee to grab my phone. Veepwatch: it burns."
Ah, ho ho. Anyways, among the indicators that this election is is making its mark in history is the long sordid affair of party unity. Coming off a massive Democratic primary with massive turnout numbers, Obama and Clinton have generated a lot of emotional ties to their supporters. How could party unity be an issue in a super-primary with huge turnout numbers with a hated hardliner Republican president in office? I suppose the answer now seems obvious. I once thought that the people who said they'd never vote for Clinton seemed like fringe freaks and one-off fatalists. And they are. But those emotional bonds between the hardline supporters is blood.
The core of the party is always a media talking point, but this year it actually has teeth. Obama picks anyone with any hint of a pro-life stance and half the normally consistent base suddenly turns into an apathetic collapsed lung on election day. The simple equation is whether the number of Clinton supporters he loses is increased by the undecided he picks up by adding a moderate to the ticket - which in and of itself is a risky proposition alone, much less adding the complexities of state-by-state undecided counts, polls, and the primary results.
Which is one point: the President is elected by states, not national popular vote, much less the national polls... for good or ill.
But that's not what Obama's really counting on for his candidacy. He's invested nearly all his money into his ground campaign. The biggest door-to-door effort in history. That hope message is pretty cold and distant coming across the HDTV. No, it'll only really work face to face, with people you have some connection to. Obama's campaign has, since its inception, been nearly flawless in its execution.
What does bother me are the numbers in MN, a state similar to us in WI and IA. Obama doesn't seem to be making an effort to turn around the falling numbers in those states. Candidates can't wait to work up through a deficit shortfall in the critical states Kerry won in 04. Luckily, McCain somehow doesn't know how many houses he owns, a baffling good break.
CNN seems to be hacked together at the moment with odd pauses and missing tape cues falling over each other waiting for their text message. Bill Richardson is twitching strangely. He'd rather not talk about how he's not the VP. Fox News is running a live feed of a light illuminating a dark window into the Biden home. That's pretty fucking pathetic. Biden's a good choice, and a safe bet, but I'm sticking with the returns on Sebelius. Kaine is out, I feel, and Bayh just doesn't seem to share any of the qualities of either Biden or Sebelius.