Hooray for local TV stations in Iowa.

Wow... Obama might just be the next Howard Dean. Yeahhggggggggg

The comparison between Obama and Dean is pretty flacid, considering the orders of magnitude of difference between the two. While Dean didn't have the early-state infrastructure necessary to win in Iowa, NH, etc...Obama's hordes ought to serve him well in that regard.

Seriously, I still wish they'd advertise by giving money to poor kids with cancer or something.

"we need to figure out why the 'national' frontrunner, Hillary Clinton, isn't generating as much excitement as her chief competitor."

Rut-roh! The Narrative might have to be changed. Can't let that happen!

we need to figure out why the 'national' frontrunner, Hillary Clinton, isn't generating as much excitement as her chief competitor."

Except the real issue might actually be the exact opposite: why the candidate who is supposedly generating the greatest enthusiasm can't seem to make any headway in the polls against a rival who's not bringing in as much money.

I mean, if name recognition were the problem, why would Obama be complete stalled in his progress against Clinton? Don't more people know about him now than a couple of months ago? Why are his numbers down?

How about the idea that people have finally given him a look-see, and the product is a tad short of the hype? Isn't that the simplest and most sensible explanation for his lowering numbers?

In fact, wouldn't the obvious conclusion from all this data be that Obama is in some kind of trouble, and his campaign better figure out a way to fix it, because otherwise he's cooked?

Another way to think about Obama's problem: why can't he turn that money and presumed enthusiasm into support from real people? Why does a now less well funded candidate get substantially more actual voters to back her?

I don't see how Obama's trend lines could be encouraging; going down in actual voter support while gaining increased recognition isn't really a good thing, I wouldn't think.

"In the first quarter, all the Dems outraised all the Republicans, $78 million to $53.6 million. This quarter, the disparity should grow even larger."

But haven't Democrats and liberals told us repeatedly that there is way too much money in politics and they have tried their hardest to get rid of it through their various failed attempts at "campaign finance reform"?

I certainly hope that they will have the good sense to give it back so they are not corrupted by having so much money. Or even better, would be to give some of it to the Republicans so that both sides have the same amount of money available. Anything else would be so unfair, right guys? LOL

What can money do for Obama? His numbers have declinced steadily. Where are the support for Obam? Did i miss something? If Obama is generating the buzz. why have his polling numbers not exploding?

Actually Dean was doing better than Obama because he had actual votes plus money. Obama has money but his support is declining steadily sicne he started the campaign.

As the campaign goes on and candidates are defined less by charisma than by actual stands on issues -- particularly economic ones -- Obama will look more and more like Gertrude Stein's Oakland: there's no there there. Other than being against Iraq involvement, Obama is essentially the triangulating Hillary Clinton, only this candidate happens to be a black male instead of a white female. Is that what progressives really want?

Obama's support has been declining? What?

Some of you aren't very skilled at reading polls.

Go here: http://www.pollster.com/08presidentialprimary.php

Note that in the 2nd quarter, Obama lost, what? Maybe .5 %? In that same period, Hillary lost ~2%...and nobody is talking about her losing ground.

And the campaigning hasn't even started yet...

Not sure whether I ultimately agree or not, but Matthew Yglesias has a decent counteragument to the Ambinder quote:

http://matthewyglesias.theatlantic.com/archives/2007/07/big_bucks.php

michael:

Obama should be doing much better, much better. Supposedly, pepple hate Hillary so you figure at least some of those would support Obama but the numbers disprove that. He is running behind Edwards, why? Yes having money is great but unless Obama can get actual support, his candicay is not going anywhere.

Why is Hillary persistantly described as a "national frontrunner"? Why is more not said about the absolute obvious -- she cannot win the general election?

Hillary as candidate would galvanize a dispirited right wing base and demoralize the left -- there are plenty of life-long Democrats who would simply stay home in 2008 if the choice is between Hillary and Fred Thompson.

It doesn't matter how many wealthy contributors she has, or how tight she is with the Dem establishment -- PEOPLE WON'T VOTE FOR HER.

Note that in the 2nd quarter, Obama lost, what? Maybe .5 %? In that same period, Hillary lost ~2%...and nobody is talking about her losing ground.

Nobody's talking about Hillary losing ground because she is still by a very good distance the frontrunner against Obama. Obama in recent months has made close to zero progress against Hillary, despite the mountains of press and money he has received. For all practical purposes here, money is a measure of activist hype. Voter support is the measure of actual political progress. The hype to progress ratio for Obama is NOT good. It might actually be more encouraging if he had not yet matched Hillary's fundraising numbers -- it would suggest he might have more room for growth and for greater recognition. But his hype and organization is at its very hilt, and he has relatively little show for it in voter support compared to Hillary.

Again, the only unstrained reading of the polls of the last several months is that he's reached a plateau in natural support.

Sure, he could in principle turn things around. But not, it would seem, by being the Obama he's been.

http://draftgore.com/

Please.

Yeah, Gore seems like a pretty damn good idea to me, anyway.

I keep vowing that there is no way in hell that I would ever vote for Hillary Clinton, and I mean that. But if I am standing in a voting booth in Nov 2008 and my choice is between Hillary Clinton and, say, Fred Thompson or Mitt Romney, jeez...if I could type a little gloomy thundercloud emoticon here I would....I would probably hold my nose and vote for Hillary Clinton because of this weeks Supreme Court decisions.

But then I turn off the news for four years, I yell at anyone who says "the first woman president" and I hate myself and detest the Democratic party. Then, in 2012, when a scandal-ridden and paralyzed Clinton 2 winds up her one term, I will see if the Dems have figured it out yet.

@frankly0

Yes. You are right. The sheeple are lining up behind HC. Who cannot seem to get more than 40% percent of the democratic vote. And is least likely of the major democratic candiates to win the general election.

But, when people realize that Gore isn't running, and Edwards isn't going to win (though he consistently does best in general election matchups) then the 30% supporting the other folks - bill richardson, gore, edwards, etc will redistribute. They aren't going to split 50/50 between HC and BO. Considering that HC has been rammed down the party's throats by the DC mandarinate, anyone not currently supporting her is opposing her.

"Why is more not said about the absolute obvious -- she cannot win the general election?"

Mostly because it's not "obvious," particularly in light of polls that show her beating all of the Republican contenders.

That was quite a flurry of trolls up-thread. If I were a politician, I'd happily take support in terms of $ in contributions and in terms of #s of contributors over apparent support in the polls. Polls can be misleading for all sorts of reasons, but how often do people send in financial contributions by mistake?

I suspect that the vast majority of people still haven't become serious about the race. It still seems a long way off, even though the front-loading of the primaries means that early money is crucial and any organization not smoothly operating by September may be too late to be useful.

Guess I'd better get off my duff and send Obama some money.

Franklyo:

My point at 11:28 was that the left is less likely to "find itself standing in a voting booth" if it's a choice between Hillary and Fred T. Too many Democrats will just stay home.

The galvanized right, however, will storm their voting places in pitchfork- and torch-wielding mobs in order to vote against Hillary Clinton. Her candidacy would totally re-energize the right wing base.

In the general election, EDWARDS WINS. Edwards seems to be a good progressive candidate. All the right seems to have on him is his good looks and the haircut. I'll vote for him in my primary (NH) and in the general election, BECAUSE HE CAN WIN.

jane:

please stop repeating the same old tired lines about Hillary. I am no fan of her but we have heard about your typical lines before and she won anyway over Rudy no less when Rudy was still very strong in NY.

if you don't want to vote for her, that is your choice but stop repeating the same BS over and over again.

She can win it all. If it is true that people hate her so much Obama should be way ahead but he is not.

bob: "She can win it all. If it is true that people hate her so much Obama should be way ahead but he is not."

The people who support Hillary do not seem to appreciate how much the rest of us do not want her to be the Democratic nominee for President. They ignore her 50% negative ratings, and focusing solely on the November, 2008, election, they still figure Hillary can win it all. Victory will be sweet!!

This is a very, very dangerous illusion. I wonder if they can think of any examples in which someone has achieved a short-term victory against odds--winning a war or an election, for example--but subsequently suffer because they just don't have the depth of support needed to secure their policies? One might call this winning the war but losing the peace.

Hillary is being rammed down the throats of many of us. Do her supporters think we will magically change our minds when we are forced to vote, or not, for her? Do they really delude themselves that our objections will be washed away and are nothing to be concerned about?

Don't count Edwards out yet. Obama will be getting a great deal of press about his money-raising ability. Deservedly so. However, we need to keep things in perspective. Howard Dean’s campaign didn’t really catch fire until the third quarter in the last cycle, and then he raised a little over 14 million dollars, much more than either Kerry or Edwards. Yet both of them beat Dean decisively in the Iowa caucuses. Although Edwards collected less than in the first quarter, this repeats his pattern in the last election cycle. However, Edwards has collected something over 23,000,000 dollars to date, a very large number relative to the last cycle, and quite enough to keep his campaign viable at this point.
From my perspective, Edwards has put forth the most detailed policy proposals for comprehensive health care, on energy and the environment, has pushed democrats to stand firm on withdrawing from Iraq, and is providing leadership on various other core democratic issues. He has been on the front lines with working people fighting for union representation and a living wage. He has also been candid about the fact that paying for these important programs will require rescinding the Bush tax cuts on those earning more than 200,000 dollars a year, a welcome ability to speak honestly about priorities. He connects with people and numerous “head-to-head� polls showing him defeating Republican front-runners show he has the ability to reach out to independents while representing progressive democratic constituencies and values. Let’s see how this develops as we move into the fall and approach the Iowa caucus.

Don't count Edwards out yet. Obama will be getting a great deal of press about his money-raising ability. Deservedly so. However, we need to keep things in perspective. Howard Dean’s campaign didn’t really catch fire until the third quarter in the last cycle, and then he raised a little over 14 million dollars, much more than either Kerry or Edwards. Yet both of them beat Dean decisively in the Iowa caucuses. Although Edwards collected less than in the first quarter, this repeats his pattern in the last election cycle. However, Edwards has collected something over 23,000,000 dollars to date, a very large number relative to the last cycle, and quite enough to keep his campaign viable at this point.
From my perspective, Edwards has put forth the most detailed policy proposals for comprehensive health care, on energy and the environment, has pushed democrats to stand firm on withdrawing from Iraq, and is providing leadership on various other core democratic issues. He has been on the front lines with working people fighting for union representation and a living wage. He has also been candid about the fact that paying for these important programs will require rescinding the Bush tax cuts on those earning more than 200,000 dollars a year, a welcome ability to speak honestly about priorities. He connects with people and numerous “head-to-head� polls showing him defeating Republican front-runners show he has the ability to reach out to independents while representing progressive democratic constituencies and values. Let’s see how this develops as we move into the fall and approach the Iowa caucus.

The people who support Obama obviously aren't being reached by pollsters at the same rate that Clinton supporters are. This idea of Obama not being able to turn cash into support from "real people" is amazingly nonsensical: real small contributions don't count, but statistical extrapolations from a survey do?