Wednesday, January 09, 2008

Establishment Verses Reformers

You'll hear a lot of explanations for Hillary Clinton's somewhat surprising victory in NH yesterday, strong support from single women, great field work, backlash from negative attacks, and so on. Here's one you probably won't see discussed very much:
"Obama did well in the (geographical) areas where in 2004 Dean did well, while Clinton's performance appears to have roughly mirrored Kerry's".
Being the "establishment" candidate gives you a huge advantage in terms of organization and the ability to get your supporters to the polls. It was a big part of why Kerry won the nomination in '04, and it's why I think Hillary is likely to be the Democratic candidate this fall.

3 comments:

Anonymous said...

Look at Obama's endorsements. Look at his money. Look at the way other candidates push their voters to caucus for him.

Is he the establish candidate? No. Do you have a love affair with a light vs darkness, good vs evil, and power vs powerless dichotomy in everything you write? Yes.

I assume you are backing Obama and not Edwards because perception is reality in politics and we wouldn't want to think you have a problem with black leaders.

Henry Dubb said...

I don't think you with a straight face can say those making under $30,000 a year are the establishment. Even Edwards was weak at voters under $50,000 a year, an income class you'd think he'd have done well at.

I don't think the gender gap would have been as great without those under $50,000 voters. It is clear from the exit polls that those who were hurt most in the last 8 years went for Hillary. Those who felt the economy was good and had a bright economic outlook (Bush was good to them) voted for Obama.

Russell Wallace said...

Anon, actually I support Edwards. Although I'd love to see a minority (or female) president, that's less important to me than the issues. Unfortunately things look rather bleak for Edwards right now. But yes, I do see power dichotomies as significant driving forces in politics. Seems like that's one of the most basic lessons of history, so I have a hard time understanding
why you have an issue with me saying so.