I thought I knocked this one down last week. If it needs to be said again, the fact that Hillary is winning these districts now doesn't mean that it's to the advantage of the incumbents to have her on the top of the ticket. And that holds true even if she'd run stronger than Obama in these districts in November.

Posted at May 9, 2008 12:25 PM in response to Hillary Campaign Emails Out "Electability" Power-Point To All House Dems

And thanks, by the way, for a fantastic post - it's great to get a well-informed local perspective on these races.

Posted at May 9, 2008 8:07 AM in response to Top 5 tidbits and stories from North Carolina's primary

I think the irony runs even deeper than you've suggested. Since the New Deal, the economies of southern states have been almost entirely reliant on federal largesse. The big defense bases and contractors that moved south during and after the war - federal dollars. The highways and transportation infrastructure tying together its cities - (largely) federal dollars. The Tennessee Valley Authority - federal dollars. Loans from SBA and ARA to fund new businesses and industries - federal dollars. Subsidies for tobacco farmers and other agricultural sectors - federal dollars. The disparity between what the Southern Sunbelt states paid in taxes and what they received in benefits peaked in the 1950s, when they received more than 50% more, but remained dramatic through the 1980s.

And here's the irony. That dependence on federal dollars fueled and reinforced characteristic southern attitudes toward government. Since these states continued to lag behind the rest of the nation in per-capita income and most other measures of economic development, they tended to regard the federal dollars they received as no more than their due. They also developed the attitude typical of those dependent on hand-outs, a mixture of fierce resentment and assertive independence. Nowhere (except in the equally-dependent Western states) was opposition to taxes fiercer, or hatred for government intervention more pronounced.

So what's changed? Yes, educational attainment has increased, and in-migration has altered the demographic composition of the state. But the biggest difference, as LBP and Urbinato note, is that the economy is no longer driven by federal dollars. And that's the irony. As North Carolina develops a knowledge-based economy, and becomes a leader in technology and finance, it has become gradually less dependent on federal subsidies. And it's those areas where the private sector is strongest that have become most liberal. It's almost a straight function - the better the economy, and the less important the role of the federal government, the more willing voters are to support initiatives that will redistribute wealth to those in need, and fund investments in education and infrastructure with an eye toward the future.

So yes, the GOP's pork-barrel spending seems to have put it out of business in North Carolina. But the ultimate irony is that after raging for decades against federal intervention, the GOP is belatedly discovering that economic success drives voters to the Democrats. Amusing, no?

Posted at May 9, 2008 8:04 AM in response to Top 5 tidbits and stories from North Carolina's primary

Thanks, Andrew, for listening to reader feeback and for making these changes.

I have to say, though, that I think the little guy has a good point. Under the new system, readers who only visit TPM-EC will only see posts that have garnered recommendations from TPM-Cafe users. That seems a little counterintuitive - shouldn't TPM-EC readers be selecting the best election-related posts themselves? I know that these are overlapping communities, but shouldn't each community select its own favorite posts?

And I also want to broach (again) a suggestion I've made on these threads before. I'd really like to see a list of "editors' picks" separate from the bi-weekly blog posts, as a column on the side of the page. When a TPM staffer sees a reader post that really stands out, he could add it to the list - new additions would bump older ones off the bottom. This would give thoughtful posts on unusual topics or offering unpopular views a fighting chance to gain an audience. With only the 'recommended' list remaining at Election Central, there's a risk that the only posts will be those relaying a fact or an opinion that's particularly popular. And that'd be a shame.

Posted at May 8, 2008 10:19 PM in response to Some Quick Changes

I'm sorry if I implied that Hillary's motives are altruistic. They're not, at least in the narrow sense, although she's certainly driven by her conviction that only she can win office and achieve real change for the American people.

My point was simply that until May 20, both candidates' interests are served by an ongoing primary battle. After that date, as Politico notes this morning, Obama will push to end this race. Hillary, on the other hand, may well wish it to continue. What happens on May 20/21 will largely be determined by what superdelegates decide over the next two weeks.

Posted at May 8, 2008 10:12 AM in response to The Magic of May 20

I fear you mistake my purpose. I post at TPM to offer analysis, not advocacy - readers are welcome to draw their own conclusions.

Posted at May 8, 2008 10:07 AM in response to The Magic of May 20

I thank you for your considered reply.

I'll grant that if the superdelegates are indeed hanging back, then it makes sense for the Obama campaign to peg the end of the race to their next victory, in two weeks time.

But I think there's good reason to believe that there has been a stampede, or at the very least a dramatic shift, and that the Obama campaign is deliberately slowing down its release of endorsements. That's how Stephanopolous was able to announce yesterday that the campaign would be rolling out supers in threes, fours, and fives - because it's got them lined up already. There's a piece out this morning that further bolsters this idea. It quotes campaign guru Tad Devine:

"I think people come in [as supporters], and I think the campaign orchestrates their announcements," said Tad Devine...."Right now, I think the Obama campaign has a lot more incoming," but is deliberately not unveiling them all at once, Devine said.

Posted at May 8, 2008 10:00 AM in response to The Magic of May 20

And there's a reason for that. The evangelical rejection of McCain doesn't fit neatly into any media narrative, and it's not expected to presage difficulties for him in November. Rightly or wwrongly, no one expects large-scale defections of dissatisfied conservative and evangelical voters to Obama.

But the media has spent the past two months obsessing about Obama's supposed inability to win over white, working-class voters. They scrutinize exit polls for signs of this failing even when the evidence is incredibly weak. If he were to lose WV and KY to a former candidate, it wouldn't be a one-day story - it'd confirm a persistent narrative. The media has been suggesting for months that a black guy from Chicago can't win over the white working class, and that these voters may become McCain Democrats. And there's nothing the media likes more than a factual nugget that fits neatly into an established storyline.

Posted at May 7, 2008 4:03 PM in response to The Magic of May 20

Forgive the error. While Oregon awards 52 pledged delegates to Kentucky's 51, the difference is not as great as my post suggested. And yes, the latter state is more populous - but it edge of half a million residents is erased by the complicated delegate apportionment math which rewards states that vote blue.

Posted at May 7, 2008 3:49 PM in response to The Magic of May 20

articleman:

You'll have to explain that one to me. If you and I can sit here today and state with absolute certainty that Obama will have the majority of pledged delegates by the end of the race (and we can) then why wait until May 20 ratifies the inevitable? It's an arbitrary milestone - introduced just a couple weeks ago by the Obama campaign. No previous race has ever used it as a benchmark. I can, off the top of my head, think of three or four other markers that have equal validity (e.g., 2024 delegates, superdelegate lead). Its utility, I think, is that it's measurable, it sounds concrete, and it won't happen for another two weeks.

And yes, Hillary would like to seat Michigan and Florida. It's in her interest to do so. But it'd be pretty easy for her to broker a deal before withdrawing, over the next two weeks. Since there's no longer any doubt about the outcome, the Clinton campaign can afford to compromise - and still be seen by the grateful citizens of MI and FL as their rescuers. I expect to hear of a deal being struck right around May 20.

Posted at May 7, 2008 3:41 PM in response to The Magic of May 20