CE Week #2: “Clinton and Obama Trade Victories”
N.Y. Senator Withstands Push By Surging Rival in Key Battlegrounds
By Dan Balz and Anne E. Kornblut
Washington Post Staff Writers
Wednesday, February 6, 2008; A01
Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton won victories over Sen. Barack Obama in California, Massachusetts, New Jersey and New York last night, giving her presidential campaign a crucial boost. But Obama countered by winning of a string of states, including the general election battleground of Missouri, in the seesaw race for the Democratic nomination.
The results ensured that the fierce contest for delegates will continue into critical primaries in Texas and Ohio on March 4, and possibly beyond, in what has become the party’s most competitive race in at least a quarter of a century.
Clinton claimed four of the five biggest prizes in Super Tuesday’s 22-state Democratic competition. She also captured Arizona, Arkansas, Oklahoma and Tennessee. Those victories helped stem what appeared to be gathering momentum around Obama’s candidacy since he won in South Carolina on Jan. 26.
But Obama won in more places than his New York rival, racking up victories in his home state of Illinois, as well as Alabama, Alaska, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Idaho, Kansas, Minnesota, North Dakota and Utah. His narrow victory in Missouri came after Clinton appeared on the brink of winning there. Only the outcome in New Mexico remained unresolved early this morning.
In many of the states Clinton won, Obama had surged from far behind to narrow the gap in the days before Super Tuesday. Her ability to hold off his charge brought a sense of relief to her campaign advisers, but the likelihood that neither would emerge with a significant advantage in delegates was a sign that their roller-coaster competition would continue.
Clinton appeared before supporters in New York shortly before the polls closed in California, thanking her supporters for voting “not just to make history, but to remake America.” Saying that Republicans want “eight more years of the same,” she added, “They’ve got until January 20th, 2009, and not one day more.” She also presented herself as a candidate who “won’t let anyone Swift-boat this country’s future.”
Obama, who was in Chicago, came out later and, while congratulating Clinton on her successes, drew a contrast with his rival, saying voters in November deserve a clear choice between the Republican and Democratic nominees.
“It’s a choice between going into this election with Republicans and independents already united against us, or going against their nominee with a campaign that has united Americans of all parties, from all backgrounds, from all races, from all religions, around a common purpose,” he said. “It’s a choice between having a debate with the other party about who has the most experience in Washington, or having one about who is most likely to change Washington, because that’s a debate that we can win.”
Clinton and Obama were fighting not just for state-by-state victories but also for an advantage in the nearly 1,700 delegates up for grabs yesterday. Aides to both candidates said that, regardless of how the two carved up the states, neither would emerge with enough of an edge to claim a substantial advantage.
Delegate tallies lagged well behind the state-by-state results, given the complex formulas the Democrats use to determine the allocation.
Clinton’s victory in Massachusetts was especially sweet for her campaign, coming despite endorsements of Obama by Sens. Edward M. Kennedy and John F. Kerry and Gov. Deval L. Patrick that gave him hope for substantial momentum heading into yesterday’s primaries.
Her advisers called it “the biggest surprise of the night.” Obama advisers had warned that Clinton’s lead may be too large to overcome, but the loss was nonetheless a disappointment to his campaign.
Though the Clinton team immediately hailed Massachusetts as an upset, Boston Mayor Thomas M. Menino said in an interview just after the race was called that he was “not surprised at all” by her win in the state. Clinton won the Bay State largely on the strength of her support from women, who made up more than half the electorate from coast to coast.
Exit polls from the National Election Pool showed Clinton with a double-digit lead among women in the state, where she attended college as an undergraduate. She also won among self-identified independents, normally a solid constituency for Obama.
“We feel quite good about how those returns have come in,” Mark Penn, the chief strategist for Clinton, said in a conference call with reporters shortly after 10 p.m. As he spoke, cheers erupted in the background at the campaign’s headquarters in Arlington.
Penn argued that people who made up their minds late were trending toward Clinton, though early exit data suggested there was an even split between the two.
In a race that will come down to delegates, Clinton officials said they will wait to see results from all the states before declaring a delegate count — but predicted she would ultimately be ahead.
“By the end of today, with pledged delegates and superdelegates, we expect to be ahead of Senator Obama in overall delegates,” said Guy Cecil, Clinton’s field director.
In the South, Clinton more than held her own. She lost Georgia — one of only a few states where she lost among women; the same was true in Illinois — but triumphed in Arkansas, her former home state, and Oklahoma and Tennessee. And the race continued to split along racial lines, as Obama won about eight in 10 African Americans, a trend that put him over the top in Georgia and Alabama.
Still, he won nearly four in 10 white voters in Georgia and fared better among white men there than he had in an earlier racially polarized race in South Carolina, giving his campaign a chance to claim that he had broadened his support in the intervening weeks. Victories in Connecticut and North Dakota bolstered that claim.
The race in Missouri remained close even as other states were called; an early tally in Clinton’s favor proved premature as the night wore on. But the state reflected a wider sweep for Obama among African Americans: He won more than three-fourths of the state’s black voters, while Clinton beat him among senior citizens by a margin of 2 to 1.
The demographics of the Democratic race suggested a contest that is dividing along racial and gender lines, as Clinton won 7 in 10 white women in New Jersey, as well as three-quarters of Hispanic women.
The candidates divided men in New Jersey evenly. In Tennessee, Clinton won white voters of all ages; Obama won blacks across the board. Similar splits occurred in California, where black voters chose Obama 5 to 1. But the two split the white vote in California, where Clinton made up the difference by winning Hispanics 2 to 1.
Twenty-two states held Democratic contests yesterday, with 1,681 pledged delegates to the party’s national convention in Denver at stake. The 22 states account for 52 percent of all pledged delegates awarded during the nomination battle.
There will be 4,049 delegates attending the national convention; a candidate needs 2,025 to secure the nomination. Of that total, 3,253 are pledged delegates, which means their votes are determined by the caucus or primary results in their state. The remainder are superdelegates, who are free to vote for whomever they prefer.
Going into yesterday’s balloting, Obama had 63 delegates to Clinton’s 48 in the first four party-sanctioned contests of the year — Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina. Clinton held a lead among superdelegates. Various news organizations count the distribution of superdelegates differently, but Clinton is widely agreed to lead Obama by a margin of about 90.
Clinton voted in New York yesterday morning and spent most of the day conducting interviews, her voice on the verge of vanishing after days of cross-country campaigning. “The stakes are huge,” she said as she cast her ballot at an elementary school near her Chappaqua home.
Obama voted in his home town of Chicago, at an elementary school in the Hyde Park neighborhood.
Throughout the day, Clinton advisers worked to play down expectations. Even before any polling stations were closed, Penn and senior adviser Howard Wolfson held a conference call with reporters to announce that Clinton had agreed to a series of debates between now and the March 4 primaries and invited Obama to join her. Doubting that they would be able to pull off a decisive victory yesterday — and with a slate of races in the weeks ahead that they believe will skew in Obama’s favor — the Clinton campaign is now banking on doing well in Texas and Ohio on March 4. Penn said Clinton would participate in an ABC News debate Sunday, a Fox News debate Monday in Washington, a Feb. 27 CNN debate in Ohio and a Feb. 28 MSNBC debate in Houston.
“The campaign believes it’s critically important that we continue the debates between Senator Obama and Senator Clinton,” Penn said. “We think it’s critically important that people get to see the candidates face to face.”
Obama advisers declined to commit to a new round of debates. The next important competitive contests will be next Tuesday, when Maryland, Virginia and the District will hold primaries.
Staff writers Perry Bacon Jr., with Clinton, and Shailagh Murray, with Obama, and polling director Jon Cohen polling analyst Jennifer Agiesta and research director Lucy Shackelford in Washington contributed to this report.
After reading the article, I am surprised still on how well Obama is doing across the nation. I feel that Hilary Clinton is also a little surprised and quite scared of the momentum behind his campaign. The article stated that Barrack Obama won more states, but that Hilary Clinton won California, a major win as well as other states that helped keep her afloat. She also has a vast amount more of superdelegates over Obama. Superdelegates which have already pledged their votes to her earlier on and do not have to vote based on their constituents and came about do to the increase of delegates going to candidates that did not have a chance to win. Which I believe might end up being the factor and edge needed to beat out her competitor. Although, just because she has more superdelegates, I am not sure that she will be able to beat out Obama. This is because Obama is gaining more and more support from his fellow black community as well as gaining support from females and males in general. The added support behind him might give him enough votes to secure enough delegates and states in order to make up for the superdelegates Hilary already has and the ones gained in California and other states won by her. All I can say is that the Democrat as well as the Republican race for a nominee is anything but over.
This race is so close that it beginning to look like the superdelegates may actually get to decide their party’s nominee. Superdelegates are national party leaders who automatically get a delegate slot at the Democratic national party convention. My understanding as that these delegates, oh so super, are thinking Clinton. So even if it’s looking like Obama, think again everyone. There’s always a catch. Obama is the most liberal member of Congress. This is probably why the superdelegates have their support thrown in for Clinton. Since everyone likes to place their own ideology in the middle, I’m surprised Barack Obama is a viable candidate at all. He is just so darn likable I guess. And he doesn’t identify himself with his leftyness. He is seen more as a symbol of unity and collaboration of all ideologies. I’ve never considered a person in the minority (and I mean his position in the political spectrum, not his race) the one to bring everyone together. The only way we will ever know what he or anyone else for that matter is capable of, is if we give them a chance in power. What ever will we do?
I personally was really surprised by the outcome of Super Tuesday. I guess this would be because all week the media had been giving the impression that Tuesday was going to decide who the two candidates were going to be. In the end, it seems that the exact opposite happened, and the Obama and Clinton are still neck and neck in the race. I really think though that this is a good thing, because it shows that frontloading really doesn’t do a state much good. In this race it seems that the later states going to be the deciding factors in who becomes the candidate. Quite ironic if you ask me. One of the most interesting things is that the ethnic and women vote seem to be the deciding factor in many of these. Generally the biggest factors in determining whether one will vote are age and education. However, it seems to me that Clinton and Obama are drawing more African Americans and women out to vote. Instead of the older generation deciding the outcome it is the different ethnicities and women. The article even talked about how Obama was getting 8 out of every 10 African American votes whereas Clinton generally won the woman vote. It should be really interesting to see if this becomes the deciding factor in who gets the candidacy. The other thing that really interests me is the fact that the super delegates have generally pledged their support for Hillary. Honestly, she really doesn’t have that much more experience than Obama so I wonder if they are just doing it because of her husband. Either way they could be the deciding factor since Obama and Hillary are so neck in neck in the race.
Lindsey Devaney
Super Tuesday was indeed very “super” and has fueled the overall intensity of this race. It kind of has the feel of a close football game, but instead of playing for (I hate to say it) a truly meaningless trophy, the players in this game are playing for the right to be the leader of—in the words of the late, great Mitt Romney—the greatest nation in the history of the world. And as Super Bowl XLII has been hailed as perhaps the greatest Super Bowl of all time, the same is being said about this most recent election. In the red corner, we have John McCain who was down and out and all of those who hope to see another old, white guy become President were cringing; now he has reemerged as the Republican frontrunner and has lifted the hopes of those previously mentioned cringers. In the blue corner, we have an African-American and a woman whose most important difference is currently the less than 100 delegates that separate the two, which also brings up a very important point previously discussed in class: superdelegates. Currently, Hillary’s superdelegates have given her a very important edge over Obama. These superdelegates came about after George McGovern did the following: came up with a plan to open up the Democratic Party, won the party’s nomination as a result, and got walloped in the general election. As a safeguard against this kind of thing happening again, the Democrats created superdelegates: 15% of the total delegates are reserved for high-ranking Democrats to ensure that the Democratic candidate is electable. Of course both races are far from being decided, the Democrats more so than the Republicans. All of this has peaked my excitement for the caucus on Saturday. Yes indeed, 2008 looks to be a very Super year.
You know, the more and more I hear from the democratic candidates–even a couple Republican ones–the more I keep hearing Obama’s “This country needs change” line used. It almost seems to me that in lue of his success, they figured his line would work to win them votes. I am actually getting kind of annoyed with it; now it isn’t special anymore or specific to Obama; now everyone is doing it, and I’m most annoyed with Hillary, who seems to be claiming that line and many others like it as her own.
I can’t really tell you how much I want Hillary to lose. That’s just personal opinion though, everyone is entitled to it, don’t go eating me alive for that.
It makes no sense to me why you would snitch from another campaign to benefit your own, when it seems people would figure it out/notice.
Someone explain to me?
I think its interesting that so far, we’re lacking any clear leaders in either party. While we’ve got those who are ahead, no one yet knows for sure who the candidates will be. I mean, personally, I think that, from what we’ve seen so far, McCain is gaining enough momentum from his comeback that he could very well sweep up the nomination. I can’t say that I was very surprised by the results of Super Tuesday. Those who I expected to come out on top did, though I was disappointed that through all of it, we’re still without a Democratic front-runner.
I notice that Clinton had called for debates with Obama, and as we’ve discussed in class, the candidate who is behind is usually the one who asks for debates. Makes me think that Clinton’s camp is worried they won’t be able to maintain their lead over Obama. Also, I understand the safety net that the superdelegates make, but I really do think that they give Clinton an unfair edge. In a way, it does feel like the final say of the nominee goes to the elites, which kind of defeats the whole purpose of the national primaries and caucuses. Even if Obama wins more delegates from the states, Clinton’s edge of the superdelegates could give her the winning numbers.
Well, like basically everyone else has stated this is one of the closest races ever and could possibly come down to the super delegates deciding the outcome. The current results of this “seesaw” race are not really that surprising however since Obama and Clinton have one similarity; they are both bringing something new to a presidential election. It seems like as soon as one of them pulls slightly ahead of the other then the candidate falling behind gets a surge of votes and gains momentum. Honestly at times it seems like, Democrat-wise, this election is going nowhere. The article talked a lot about Clinton capturing many of the women votes and Obama doing the same with the African American votes during the primaries on Super Tuesday. It is really impressive how well both of them are doing since, at one time, they seem disadvantaged and were never expected to be so popular among voters. Clinton had an impressive win of states on Tuesay, but Obama was not too far behind winning twelve states. With Clinton winning the big ones and Obama getting a significant number of small states the two candidates once again canceled out each other’s success and are close in numbers once again. It will be interesting to see how all this pans out.
The Democratic side of the Primaries is a real nail-biter. First it’s Hillary in the lead, then Obama, then Hillary, then Obama. Every state matters now; Idaho, Oklahoma, Alaska, and it even sounds like the votes here in Washington are going to make a difference! In recollection, states like Iowa and New Hampshire, who got all the publicity for being the first and most important primaries, are long gone and pretty much forgotten about. They really didn’t have the big of an effect on where the race stands right now. The competitiveness of the election currently is actually pretty entertaining to follow because it is an “in your face” for all those greedy states who were chomping at the bit to frontload. States like Washington, where we had previously wondered if our votes would even make that much of a difference by the time our primary finally arrived, are the states that the race is coming down to. Washington is like Caleb Forest on the WSU basketball team, the player who comes into the game when Kyle Weaver fouls out in overtime; the spectators don’t really pay attention to him until the game actually starts to rely on him.
Clinton was winning more delegates and getting more super delegates on her side…. which I don’t know how that makes a differance. Super delegates, aren’t they just delegates that are not pledged to a certain party? Must ask about this later… but the point is…
We matter! Oh my gosh. I’m actually voting now. But I guess with two very unique democratic frontrunners, I shouldn’t be really suprised, should I? Also the slogan, ‘this country needs change,’ is what alot of presidents say… when they are advertising themselves for presidency. It’s not uncommon, but yes, it’s lame. I mean, they say change, but what needs changing, specifically? Currently our nation is in debt, China is probably going to kick us out of ‘first place’ here shortly, and we are sick of the Iraq War. Did you know that back in 2002, Bush had a 70% approval rating because of the war? This was back when September 11 was still under a ton of people’s skins. But now that it’s 2008, everyone is sick of him. Go figure.
While I love all the news coverage and speculation, I still can’t wait for this race to be over. The anticipation is really killing me and I can’t take much more of Obama going on and on about how he’s such a symbol of change. Sure his being black is a symbol of change, but he isn’t going to “change Washington” like he says. Ever politician says they’ll rock the system, fight the power, or what have you, but it never really happens. Call me a pessimist, but Barack’s one liner of change is really getting old. Now I think he’s just saying it to get elected; just feeding the people what they want to hear. If anything I’d take the compromise, a president who’d be just as large a symbol of change (a woman) but someone who knows actually knows the ropes and understands the bureaucracy. You can’t just be the new guy and think you can “wing it”. Probably the real reason I might be so anti-Obama is because I think he’ll probably win. I think enough people are buying his talk and he and Hillary have basically the same views. Like many others have been saying, I think super delegates will come into play, but I don’t think Hillary has enough to hold Barack off. I just have this gut feeling that Barack will pull ahead.
Wow! Super Tuesday was a huge surprise! The media sounded like the nomination will be clear by Super Tuesday, but they were way wrong. I remember seeing some polls declaring that Hillary Clinton was in the lead, nationally, by 10% and that Barack Obama needed to catch up. Well we all know that we can never rely on polls. This race is not even close to being over, anything can happen. It’s amazing that the candidates have to now fight for delegates in the later primaries. We discussed in class that Washington has 97 delegates to award on Saturday, so Obama and Clinton need our delegates. We are going to see a lot of political advertisements for the next couple days. I wonder if Obama or Clinton will actually come to Spokane. That would be awesome. This race is mind boggling because it might have to come down to the national convention where the super delegates will probably have to decide. Super delegates are the national party leaders who automatically get a delegate slot at the Democratic national party convention. As of now Hillary has the lead in super delegates and that gives her an advantage, but it does not mean that the race is over. Obama has time to gain more super delegates and beat Hillary. You never know.
As a result of Super Tuesday, Clinton won had key victories, including California, New York, and Arkansas (home state and former home state), but because Obama was campaigning to win all the little battleground states, he didn’t lose ground on Hillary. As the votes stand they are neck and neck, with only a hundred delegate difference. The only reason that Hillary is ahead by that much is because she was pledged a huge slug of super delegates. I found the fact about the 3,253 super delegates warded to be very interesting. I knew that super delegates made sure that the Democrats had a viable candidate, but I had no idea how influential they were in determining a race. In class we talked about the McGovern-Frasier Commission and the role that super delegates played after the 1972 presidential elections. Even with the super delegates swaying in Hillary’s favor, neither candidate has emerged with a true advantage or a big enough lead for the deal to be sealed. The beginning of March will be the make or break point for the candidates. Candidates need to gain momentum in order to propel themselves farther into the lead. Key endorsements from John Kerry, Oprah and Senator Edward Kennedy, were key momentum swingers for Obama, but who knows who Hillary will receive support from. Now that Super Tuesday is over, it will be interesting to see how the next few weeks play out for the Democratic candidates. Who knows maybe we will see a winner start to emerge.
Substantive representation has been the norm for our country since its creation; every president has been a caucasian male. However, women outnumber men in the United States: 153.1 million women compared to 148 million men. And as our country moves toward a minority-majority, there will soon be less caucasians in the U.S. compared to those who aren’t. Could the Democratic Party be moving toward descriptive representation?
Unfortunately, there can be problems when comparing the two types of representation. Hillary Clinton seems to be pulling more and more women into her constituency–but why are they joining her? Is it because they agree with her ideas and political goals (a possibility)…or is it because she is a woman like they are? Barack Obama has had African-Americans voting for him in droves…but is it because they just want an African-American president?
In substantive representation, voters evaluate candidates based upon shared interests. A black woman may have to choose between two white male candidates (let’s call her Condi). Now, Condi will most likely support the candidate who shares her political goals. But what happens when the race is between a white male and a black woman? Even if the white candidate shares her political beliefs, Condi may vote for the black woman because they share personal characteristics.
This sort of choice hypes the “beauty contest” aspect of democracy. Is substantive or descriptive representation better for our country? And how much of a factor will it be this November?
These Presidential nominations, at least on the Democratic side, sure are exciting this year! Now that Edwards has dropped out, the race has really turned into much more of a one-on-one battle instead of a race. Both candidates are almost fighting for each state as they try to pull ahead in electoral votes. I remember when I was watching the coverage on Super Tuesday one of the announcers said that if Obama gets within 100 delegates, the campaign is going to try to portray that as a victory, because the next ten events are supposed to favor him and he seems to have the momentum of a winning candidate. When I checked the stats in the morning newspaper I was excited to hear what the Obama campaign was going to say about the numerous victories they had across the U.S. I think the whole idea of the super delegates is a little confusing because it seems like right now, most of them are pledging to vote for Hilary, but it also seems like they can change their mind at any time if they want to so it doesn’t really matter who they say they are going to vote for now. I didn’t really like how a lot of this article seemed to focus on racial issues, but I guess that’s always going to happen when you talk about the Democratic Party and a potential black President. My connection is the whole super delegates business because the fact that those 800 or so delegates who are not necessarily pledged at the moment to who they will vote for in the end could end up making the nomination for one or the other candidate become a reality this time.
I can honestly declare that I feel that Obama’s biggest threat to his campaign is Hillary Clinton. Rightfully so, this race has turned into a deadlock. Now, I’ve supported Mr. Obama since day one, but I had no idea that he would get as far as he did. But, hey, that kind of coexists with the fact that his campaign is feeding off hope. Like he said, in one of the best, if not THE best, speeches I have ever seen, how could a black man who grew up with one parent, living in the hood; one that aspired to become president of the United States of America in kindergarten, how could this man actually have a chance? That’s right, hope.
But what came apparent to me yesterday, during the Super Tuesday coverage was the fact that 56% of democratic Americans thought that change was the biggest issue in America. Bigger than illegal immigrants. Bigger than the economy. Even bigger than Iraq. Needless to say, this is again what Obama’s campaign is founded upon. But Hillary recognized this in her speech, “saying that Republicans want “eight more years of the same,” “. The one thing that she doesn’t realize is that she is the same. The Republicans are even more of the same, but nonetheless, Hillary Clinton is the same. She has been here before. Many of her supporters argue that she has experience that overwhelms that of Obama’s. This is why they feel much more “comfortable” with Mrs. Clinton in the oval office. Ok, if she has the experience, then why is she talking about change? Obviously, that isn’t what kind of campaign she is running, so technically she endorses Obama here, right? So, if she endorses Obama, doesn’t that mean that she has dropped out of the race? Ok, so then rightfully so, Obama gets the nomination, right?
Nah? Well, that was an expected no, but please, someone educate me on why she is stealing his catchphrases. She picked up on hope and change. Let me assure you that she did not make this part of her campaign before Barack Obama. She’s a FAKE, and that’s why I see her losing to the Republicans if she gets the nomination. But hey, she won all of the voting ages over 50. That’s a positive, right? What, she lost all UNDER 50? Oh, so she got most of the voters that are more likely to call themselves moderate or Republican voters, to vote for her. This is good, right? No, they’re party raiding. This is why she loses. Right now, all she has is the old vote, the woman vote, and the latino vote. All of these could be easily won by Obama if he gets the nomination, but he might not get the chance. We just might have a Republican in office for the third straight term. Oh, joy!
Candidates are definitely not the same
Response To Brian Freeland.
Not to exactly shove it in your face (actually it doesn’t matter because you probably won’t read this) but when you said that “Obama’s biggest threat to his campaign is Hillary Clinton.” my eyes bugged out and I just stopped. “Thank you Captain Obvious” I mean seriously, if anyone paid any attention to the candidates, they would say that for the Democratic nomination it really will come down to Obama and Hillary. Thank you though for the insight though, it was greatly appreciated…
So when you began discussing that 56% of America wanted change, doesn’t that encompass change in Iraq, change in immigration, change in the White House, and change in life period? Of course Americans want change, I want to change my car to a jeep, but is that going to happen any time soon? Not exactly. Personally I’m glad that Obama is “centered” on change because if he was a clone of George W. Bush, the scientists really need to start back at the drawing board. And the whole bit about endorsing Obama…Hillary’s pretty crazy, but not THAT crazy! When saying that “Republicans want ‘eight more years of the same,’” she actually is separating herself from the pack. Yes, she is piggy-backing on Obama’s platform, but she definitely is not that same the Republicans; at least I hope not or else the Democrats are in some deep trouble. If we say that the candidates are actually quite the same beings, the political efficacy would drop ten-fold. I mean, our political efficacy is low already, but people thinking that their vote actually matters isn’t that high anyways. If all the candidates “seem” the same, then it doesn’t matter who wins because they are the same. Obama and Hillary are definitely not the same or Hillary and President Bush aren’t the same, so I really don’t understand exactly what you are saying. So yea, they definitely are not the same candidates.
Danny Porter
Response to Chelsea
I definitely agree with you that the Democrats’ choice between a woman and an African-American serves to heighten the hype and “beauty contest” aspects of the election. As to whether substantive or descriptive representation is better, I think that descriptive representation is better theoretically, but in reality it creates to much cross pressure on voters to effectively work. Just like your scenario, many people will vote based on their political ideas, but when given the opportunity I think that many would rather vote for the person who looks like them, and I worry that when Democrats this year are confronted with the choice between Obama and Clinton, many people will choose the person who shares their own personal characteristics. That is certainly not the best way to elect a leader, and as long as that is the reality, I think that substantive representation is better. Not because I think that white males should always be in charge (which I absolutely do not!!), but because that way at least the person who is elected is the one whose political views most closely match the publics. At this point and time, we need a candidate who wins the presidency because of what they can do for the country, not because they will make history as the first woman or black president. I would have no problem with either a female or African-American in the white house, as long as it is their political policy that gets them there.
Andrew Barnes
Chelsea, you read my mind. What strikes me about the Democratic contest is the emergence of definite voting trends, not necessarily by party, but by race or gender. Women are more likely to vote Democratic, but in this particular election, the fact that a female candidate is a major presidential contender could be alluring to even Republican women. Which brings us to your question: if women from both parties were to vote for Hillary, than the results may not be based on issue agreement but rather on descriptive representation. I must admit, although I do not support any candidate exclusively as of yet, I find myself drawn to Hillary Clinton because I like the idea of a woman in the White House. This isn’t for feminist reasons as much as this is history in the making and I cannot believe it is unfolding before my very own eyes; yet, Obama carries similar historical prospects, and I find myself less interested. Therefore, gender is a significantly powerful factor, and most interestingly, this the first presidential election where that is the case. The wives of candidates have always been used as an influential tool for galvanizing women to get out and vote, but this election is one for the history books not just because we have a female candidate, but more rudimentarily, because gender could be the deciding factor. In the 1950’s, there were two million more women registered to vote than men: if Hillary gets the nomination, how could the support of women affect the general election?
I’d have to agree that this Democratic race is getting down to the wire and becoming a real nail-bitter. It is very interesting to see both Obama and Clinton coming neck-n-neck with almost every state they win. At one point Clinton seems to pull ahead with some major big states but then Obama comes in with a crucial amount of smaller states to tie things back up again. “But the likelihood that neither would emerge with a significant advantage in delegates was a sign that their roller-coaster competition would continue.” This just goes to show that we will continue to watch this Democratic campaign without any real look at who is going to come out on top and win the nomination. I also find it interesting that the states that frontloaded and got their votes in early are turning out to not matter at all. Now states that usually don’t have that much of a voice with their primary or caucus are beginning to have big impacts on the race towards a candidate. As much as people think Hillary has a bigger advantage with all the super delegates, I still think this race is going to stay really close until the very end. There is just something about this year’s two Democratic candidates, the fact that they are both so different and something our country’s never experienced before, that is making people really think about who they are going to vote for and really makes the race so close.
In response to almost everyone’s posts here I would have to say that everyone here seems to come to the exact same conclusion.
Hillary is winning by a small margin but a small enough margin to get by. Everyone in the democratic party is feeling cross pressure. Like what Amanda said this election can’t just be based on good candidate vs. better candidate. It’s changed into white woman vs black man. Both with extensive roots in history that will be broken once one of them becomes president. As we can tell this is deeply effecting the primaries and the caucuses that are going on right now, so we have to ask, like Amanda said earlier, how will this effect the general election? Will there be a low turnout because of cross pressure? Will women of all parties come out to voter Hillary? Will black men from both parties come out to vote Obama? Honestly we won’t know. People are far to complicated to just assume these things. As of now all we can say is that Hillary is ahead by a small margin and that Obama is catching up steadily. Some of us hope Hillary keeps that gap. Some of us hope Obama will close that gap in the blink of an eye.
Reply to Brian:
Oh Brian, you are crazy funny. But, the more you explained it, the more I have to agree that this Presidential Race of ‘08 is starting to look a lot like a suspenseful “super bowl” game. The Democratic race in particular is looking particularly “horse race-ish” as I would like to call it. Both Barack and Hillary and consistently winning states, but I feel like Hillary is always just a little ahead. Which is rather frustrating. Last night as I was watching the Washington results coming in, it wasn’t the Democrats that were surprising me, it was my good old friend Ron Paul. He was getting really high numbers, and it was obvious that maybe Washington has a different view of Paul then the rest of the country. I guess all of that campaigning wasn’t too useless after all. Yes, he is still the “dark horse” candidate, but I must say, I was impressed! Even though he is a few touchdowns behind, Paul still can pack a punch. I am also still stunned by Mitt Romney’s withdrawal from the race, I really didn’t feel like he was doing that bad, and he was still polling adequate numbers especially for a millionaire.
I really have to acknowledge Chelsea’s and Amanda’s posts. Both girls seemed to be moving in on a very controversial issue: is Hillary getting the support of women because of her policies and stance on the issues, or simply because she is a woman? At the Democratic caucus I attended on Saturday, a man in my precinct speaking on behalf of Hillary stated that “we have a chance to make history” by electing Mrs. Clinton to the White House. However, I do not think that having the first female U.S. President is enough of a reason to elect someone.
Texas and Ohio will be two very important contests, and it may even come down the Superdelegates. In all, I think that if Hillary got the nomination that she would have a very hard time beating McCain, thus continuing the era of our divided government. Right now, I don’t think anyone has the slightest idea of what this election may come down to.
Super Tuesday was indeed a “super” day, but I think Hillary has a lot at stake. She may have won many states, but Obama closed the gap in support and was a lot closer than many had predicted. With his win in Washington (a huge one at that), there is no clear front-runner here. I for one am very excited to be witnessing such a close race for the nomination. Not to mention, I am a delegate for my own precinct