Election Central Saturday Roundup
DNC Out-Raises RNC For First Time This Cycle
The Democratic National Committee has announced that they raised $27.7 million for the month of July, just edging out the RNC's $26 million, the first time this whole cycle that the usually-underfunded DNC has outdone the RNC. The DNC, including its joint committee with the Obama campaign, has $28.5 million cash on hand, bringing the Democratic total with the Obama campaign to $94.3 million -- just narrowly behind the Republicans' aggregate total of over $100 million on hand.
Obama Leaves Hawaii
Barack Obama's Hawaiian has come to an end last night, as the candidate left the islands to head back to the mainland and the campaign trail. Between now and November, it will be practically nothing but non-stop campaigning.
Obama And McCain To Appear At Saddleback Church Tonight
Barack Obama and John McCain will both be at Pastor Rick Warren's Saddleback Church tonight, where they will take questions separately from Warren on various national issues. Note that this is not a debate, in which the candidates would take questions simultaneously, though they are expected to share the stage for a brief photo opportunity. The event is scheduled to begin at 8 p.m. ET.
Loretta Sanchez: Half Of House Dems Could Vote For Hillary At Convention
In an indication that the Democratic Convention could unintentionally give an appearance of Democratic disunity, Congresswoman Loretta Sanchez of California is predicting that up to half of the House Dems could end up voting for Hillary Clinton under an open roll call. "I felt she was the most experienced and the best candidate and I still feel that way," Sanchez added -- though for the record, it should be noted that Hillary herself has said she personally plans on voting for Obama.
McCain: Western State Water Compact Should Be Reopened
John McCain may have just gotten in trouble in the key swing state of Colorado, telling The Pueblo Chieftain that the 1922 water compact among Western states should be renegotiated. Democratic Sen. Ken Salazar responded by saying Mccain's position is "absolutely wrong and would only happen over my dead body," and that Colorado should fear losing more its water resources if negotiations are opened up again.
GOP Senate Candidate: Feds Raking In Cash On The Backs Of Oil Companies
And speaking of Colorado, the campaign of Democratic Senate nominee Mark Udall is sending around this tracker audio of Republican nominee Bob Schaffer complaining that the federal government is taking too much money from the oil companies. "But because prices are soaring, the reality is the federal government is raking in a bunch of cash right now on the backs of energy producers," Schaffer says -- perhaps not the most popular message this year:
I would expect you to be smart enough not to fall for it.
More House members endorsed Obama than Hillary. Are we to believe they are going to go out of their way to insult him by voting for her now ?
Please. It is another of these Clintonite idiots who think they are helping her by overdoing it and end up humiliating her when she falls so far short of new expectation - as will undoubtedly happen.
I am surprised you are one of the many falling for that.
August 16, 2008 12:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
ditto
McCain lies about his voting record on energy
August 16, 2008 1:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
So is this also yet another indication that Barack Obama's financial advantage may not prove to be all that formidable?
August 16, 2008 12:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
"So is this also yet another indication that Barack Obama's financial advantage may not prove to be all that formidable?"
Thank you NCSteve, keep hitting Eric on this - when I read that part of his post I literally threw up my hands and yelled "What the fuck?!!"..lol
August 16, 2008 1:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, clearly Obama's money advantage was always over-stated.
Sorry, guys. I realize I'm being a little jerky, but can we maybe think about leaving the "I'm spouting patent nonsense in the expectation that everyone will be awed by how prescient and insightful I was if it turns out to be right and will forget I ever said it if I'm wrong" schtick to the master? 'Cause, in the age of the Internets, it doesn't work.
(Candor compels me to admit that the jerkiness may also be, in some part, attributable to my slight hangover.)
August 16, 2008 1:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
very much overstated I remember pundits saying Obama could raise more then 84 million in one month...come on
McCain lies about his voting record on energy
August 16, 2008 1:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
So because pundits said he could have a 3-to-1 advantage, the face he has a 2-to-1 advantage is BAD NEWS ?
What a bunch of bull
August 16, 2008 1:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Pundits" say all kinds of stupid shit. Most pundits say nothing but stupid shit. "Pundits" said the Iraqis would welcome us with flowers and open arms, that the war would pay for itself and that Iraq would become a beacon of democracy for the middle east. Pundits said Hillary couldn't lose. Pundits said Bush was poised for a big comeback in 2007.
Which was kind of my point.
Obama's campaign, however, opted out of public financing based on the calculation that they could raise 50 million a month. They seem to be doing that, don't they?
That said, I don't recall any pundit saying he could raise 84 million a month. Got a cite?
August 16, 2008 2:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have a foggy recollection that during the first couple weeks after Hillary bowed out, the network news and Washington Week, etc. were claiming Obama had the potential to raise $300 million in two months. It was clearly BS, based on the assumption that everyone who had donated to date would kick in another $200 or something along that line. I worried at the time that it might make would-be donors complacent. Just another example of pundits blowing smoke out their ass.
August 16, 2008 3:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Similar smoke to the smoke saying Obama was suppose to be further ahead in the polls at this time.
August 16, 2008 3:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
sanchez is a fucking idiot to talk like that a week away from the convention.
August 16, 2008 1:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
After the rollout of the VP and the big speeches, no one will remember this vote.
If anything, the maneuvering around this convention puts more pressure on the Clintons to come across as effusive and enthusiastic in their support of Obama.
August 16, 2008 1:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's putting significantly more pressure on both Clintons. You would think that her "supporters" might realize that they're making Clinton's political life much more difficult.
August 16, 2008 3:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
The meme that the Clintons fear most is that they cost Obama the election should he fall short in November. I would expect to see the Clintons, especially Hillary, to be out in front of the cameras prior to convention repeating over and over how she is going to cast her vote for Obama.
August 16, 2008 3:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Democratic National Committee has announced that they raised $27.7 million for the month of July, just edging out the RNC's $26 million,
EXCELLENT NEWS FOR MCCAIN!!!
August 16, 2008 1:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
McCain: Western State Water Compact Should Be Reopened
What's funny about this is that I've long operated on the assumption that while Obama was very strong in the Mountain West states, if he was going to falter there, it would be due to McCain being much more intimate with some of the niche issues that can potentially move votes. This is exactly what I had in mind.
The fact that McCain has stepped into this debate like he has only shows that we really can't assume that McCain is on top of even the issues that you would have to assume are right in his wheelhouse. Renegotiating the western water treaty would be great for his home state of Arizona, it would be wildly unpopular in Colorado. He can talk about being a "federalist" and "states rights" all he wants, but if this get picked up by local Colorado media, the damage is done.
McCain's unwillingness to prepare never ceases to surprise me. I wouldn't be shocked to find out that he thought that he was talking to press from his home state.
August 16, 2008 1:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Obama campaign will no doubt design one of their regionally targeted, negative issue-ads to further the "not in my backyard" theme that should play well in states sharing a border with Arizona.
August 16, 2008 1:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why do you call them negative ads if they speak the truth about McCain using his own words ? Stop buying into RW meme that Obama is going negative. He is not and McCain is the gift that keeps on giving. Call them attack ads (which they rightly are and rightly should be), not negative ads.
August 16, 2008 8:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
they ARE negative ads if they primarily focus on the opponent's negatives. even if the negatives are about policy and issues. even if the negatives are true. even if the ads also include obama's positives for contrast.
seems to me you've bought into the 'conventional wisdom' meme that negative ads are a bad thing. they aren't. they are a necessary component of any campaign. you have to show your opponent's negatives or your positives are empty prattle. (and as anyone who has ever worked in sales knows: fear of loss is always a stronger motivator than opportunity for gain.)
the problem with negative ads comes when all you've got are negative ads. when all you've got are your opponent's negatives and you don't have any positives to campaign on. the other problem is when the negative ads are ad hominem attacks designed to impugn the opponent's character instead of his policy positions (but again, the problem isn't that those ads are 'negative ads', the problem is that those ads are ad hominem attacks - a distinction too nuanced for the lou dobbs phony 'independent populist' types). the problem isn't running negative ads it's running a negative campaign. so even though obama is indeed running negative ads, he is by no means running a negative campaign. by contrast, not only is mccain running ad hominem attack ads against obama but it would be difficult at this point to argue that mccain isn't running a negative campaign. these are distinctions with a very big difference.
August 17, 2008 10:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hmmm. Sounds like another case of some me-first-me-only lobbyist getting through to McSame on his cellphone just before his interview.
I thought they were gonna restrict McFeeble's cellphone access so off-message fumbles like this didn't happen. Maybe he snuck in a spare phone in his Depends™.
If Rick Warren's cone-of-silence trick actually works tonight, they might want to get his secret recipe.
August 16, 2008 3:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
I loved Sen. Salazar's "over my dead body" response. Hope that Obama Camp will make good use of this in some local ads.
August 16, 2008 8:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
McCain's been an Arizona pol for 30-odd years... My guess is anyone who digs could find oodles of quotes of him saying exactly this over that time. Either he was unprepared for the question and gave his old stock response by reflex, or (if the campaign has now become competent), they anticipated the question and calculated that the fallout from a "flip-flop" would be worse overall.
Although couldn't he have just dodged and said it's not a Presidential matter? (Maybe it is, I don't really know the issue.)
August 17, 2008 4:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
Eric, your Sanchez lede is completely misleading. Here is her quote:
"Would probably be...supporters" and "could vote for" are absolutely different, and not supportive of your interpretation. Don't try to drum up controversy where only PUMA thinks there is some.
August 16, 2008 1:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
McCain: Western State Water Compact Should Be Reopened
I hope Obama starts hammering McCain in the states this affects, like Colorado. I'm sure they won't like it much. Like he's been doing in Ohio with the DHL ads.
I love how McCain gives Obama another issue on which to locally ad-blitz him.
August 16, 2008 1:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
We're thinking on the same lines, again Chrono.
How about at the end of the article there where McCain tries to sweet-talk them with some, "I might be open to the idea of Federal funding for water storage." What a creep.
Time for this guy's Night of the Living Dead persona to come out for full exposure in the clear light of day.
August 16, 2008 8:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
If half the House Democrats are Hillary supporters why wouldn't they follow her advice and vote for Obama. There needs to be a clear line separating those that admire Sen. Clinton and those that use her name in order to attack Obama. Do not be fooled. PUMAs are not Clinton supporters. They are McCain surrogates. This cannot be repeated enough.
August 16, 2008 1:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Loretta Sanchez is a clown. You're supposed to rally around your candidate for crying out loud.
Obama is not going to have a money advantage because McCain gets $84M in September, so if Obama raises his standard $50M, he'll have a mere $16M advantage. The bigger news is the Dems equaling the GOP in money raised. Not the $200M+ number that was floated. Also McCain is going to spend like crazy the rest of the month, whereas Obama will probably save some money.
I've read elsewhere that McCain has bought up a lot of commercial time for the Dem Convention. It's an interesting strategy.
I don't like the Rick Warren deal tonight at all. I think it's a trap for Obama. And speaking in front of an evangelical crowd, being pro-choice and pro-gay marriage he's going to get booed off the stage. Expect Rev Wright to be brought up tonight as well.
August 16, 2008 1:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
I dont know if you can calculate properly but McCain will have only 84M to spend between September 1st and November .
In the meantim Obama would have 50M in August, 50M in Sep, 50M in october and that s only if he keeps up the pace.
Most years fundraising explodes after Labor Day when people start paying attention.
But at the minimum he would have a 2-to-1 advantage.
Hardly something to spit at.
August 16, 2008 1:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh and Rick Warren is not the kind of church where you get booed on social issues.
The whole point of Warren and why some conservatives hate him is that he keeps saying social issues are a detail and poverty and war are more important to Christianity.
And bringing up Wright in a church would be the BEST potential forum for Obama to revisit that story. It is important for Wright to be remembered as a pastor not as a polictical topic. It softens the harshness of the story.
August 16, 2008 1:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama spoke there with Brownback on the issue of AIDS back in 2006, even when many of the evangelical leaders were asking him to rescind his invitation to Obama
August 16, 2008 1:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, I think tonight is a very big opportunity for both candidates. I think there'll be a surprising number of votes up for grabs out of the people that are going to tune in. There are a lot of non-Evangelical yet genuinely religious people that will be tuning in to get their first real impressions of the two candidates. Most of these people are not hard-liners, and their votes will be up for grabs. Obama's job will be to keep them from running straight into the arms of the Republican. I think that with honesty and candor, he'll do that.
There'll of course be plenty of people watching who would never consider voting for Obama, but I think there'll be more genuinely uncommitted votes interested than you think, Jonze.
August 16, 2008 1:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
There are plenty who are more keen on seeing what McCain says than Obama. If he doesn't perform well, and convince many in the far right he is one of them, their enthusism, and all their dollars, GOTV work and other efforts will start to fade away.
August 16, 2008 1:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
I haven't quite figured out Warren yet. I don't trust him, but Obama and him seem to get along. Obama wouldn't have agreed to this if he didn't trust Warren at some level not to go after the gotcha questions, and Warren has promised not to do the gotcha questions, and that the questions will such that he can ask the question to both candidates.
August 16, 2008 1:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
i wouldn't expect a bunch of gotchas from the author of 'the purpose driven life' in a forum where 'civility' is the central theme. saddleback's evangelism isn't really the sort of evangelical christianity that has given evangelicals a bad name. this scene is a natural for obama. (though i only bothered watching the first ten minutes and wuite by accident as i was looking for classic arts showcase on the community access channels...)
August 17, 2008 10:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
"I don't like the Rick Warren deal tonight at all. I think it's a trap for Obama. And speaking in front of an evangelical crowd, being pro-choice and pro-gay marriage he's going to get booed off the stage. Expect Rev Wright to be brought up tonight as well."
I don't know Jonze, I don't think Obama's appearance is such a bad thing at all. I mean, Obama and Warren are friendly, Warren doesn't seem to be a stereotypical evangelical, and he seems to be a fair enough guy to know that if he brings up Wright then he also has to bring up McCain's infidelity. Also, Obama just seems to be better equipped to talk about religion than McCain does. I see it was a positive, but then again I've been wrong before - if so, please keep the "told you so's" to a minimum. lol
August 16, 2008 1:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
I commented further down below. I read on Jake Tappers blog that Warren will ask identical questions to both, and Obama won the coin flip and will go first. Warren said that McCain will sit in a cone of silence for the hour, making sure he'll hear none of the questions or answers before he heads on stage.
August 16, 2008 2:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Cone of silence - hilarious. Brings up images of Get Smart.
But, I think it's important that Obama not just surrender the Christian Evangelical vote to the Right. There are many in that camp who are just as disgusted with the Bush administration as the rest of us and may be open to what Obama has to offer.
August 16, 2008 8:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
not just 'may be' but will.
while the GOP can safely count on a majority of the so-called evangelical vote, obama will get at least 20% of the evangelical vote without even trying. (and he could get as much as say 40% even - if i might pull a number at random from my rectal cavity - if he really makes a play for it... especially since mccain being a phony could tamp down conservative evangelical turnout.)
[and i'll also take this opportunity to beat my drum about how the conventional wisdom that bush owes much of his political success to the evangelical vote is a bunch of horse feathers. misinformed voters as a whole account for a much greater number of bush voters than informed evangelical conservatives ever did. the fiction played well for both bush and conservative evangelicals in making themselves seem special and important to one another but it never had anything to do with reality.]
August 17, 2008 10:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
You don't know what you're talking about. Obama is much better on issues of faith than McCain will ever hope to be. The last time he spoke at Saddleback, he wowed the crowd. He won them over, even though many of them disagreed with him on the hot button issues.
August 16, 2008 2:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bob FamilyValues Shaffer:
This guy is toast.
Big Oil is an albatross of deadly weight. TN-01 congressman David Davis just got whacked in the Republican primary by Johnson City mayor Phil Roe. Roe won by linking Davis to Big Oil. Davis lost while on Capitol Hill joining the tantrum the Republicans were staging to embarrass House Dems for being on vacation instead of coming back to vote for off-shore drilling. How sweetly ironic.
Support for drilling seems to be very wide but not particularly deep.
This suggests a possible toxic branding for McFeeble: Big Oil flunky.
This branding has the advantage of tying McSame to Bush and Cheney -- both iconic Big Oil shills. And as the economy swirls further down the toilet, high gas prices and record Big Oil profits will make a lot of people Mad as Hell.
It checks a lot of boxes: same as Bush, same as Cheney, economic disaster, nation of whiners, out of touch, Countrywide First (a slight stretch), corporate greed, etc.
Not sure if it's the best way to define McSame, but it sounds pretty damn good.
August 16, 2008 1:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Loretta - you are not helping.
August 16, 2008 1:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am so glad that Barack is back from his vacation. This has been a hell of a long week without him. Does he think someone else has been doing his work for him? Uh uh, it is just piling up on his desk.
August 16, 2008 1:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Sanchez quote is a figment of Ben Smith's imagination (iow, total BS).
See DemConWatch refutation here: http://www.demconwatchblog.com/2008/08/some-clinton-backers-blowing-smoke-on.html
Surprised that TPM would run this without checking it out a bit. I've learned not to trust Politico.
August 16, 2008 1:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
What are you talking about? That site you linked to does not the dispute Sanchez quote on Politico; it disputes Sanchez' claim that half of the house will vote for Clinton.
August 16, 2008 2:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Okay, smart guy. Find me a citation that quotes Sanchez as saying: "...half of House Dems could vote for Hillary at convention...", or even anything close to that that includes the words "vote" and "convention".
(theme from Jeopardy plays...)
August 16, 2008 2:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
After looking at the actual quote on Politico, what do YOU think that Sanchez meant? I'm not not necessarily agreeing with Politico's interpretation, but I find her choice of the words "would probably be" very interesting.
August 16, 2008 3:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Personally, I think she was talking out of her ass and had no intention of saying anything that resembled the truth.
It's just a shame that Smith (unrepentent Clintonite that he is) misquoted her crap and spread an obvious falsehood throughout the internet.
August 16, 2008 3:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not sure what your beef is. Are you claiming that she was "misquoted" or that she was "misinterpreted"?
August 16, 2008 3:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Don't really care what you call it. As I already said, I'm pissed that Smith once again intentionally spread an obviously false anti-Obama story throughout the internet. And I'm not happy that TPM picked it up from Politico without checking it out.
Any journalist worth his/her salt would have first realized that Sanchez' facts were way off (see DemConWatch analysis), and not given credence to her quote. But Smith not only gave it credence, he decided to change the quote for headline drama, using "vote at convention" instead of "be supporters".
That's malfeasance in his position as a journalist. Not unusual, but still wrong.
August 16, 2008 3:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Isn't it news to be reported that there is a rep who is willing to even say this idiotic comment? I think she is spewing poo here, but she is, unfortunately, one of the people leading our government.
August 16, 2008 3:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
No. I believe that is one of the major problems in journalism today--"reporters" who will make stories out of anything that a "public" person says, no matter how ridiculous or obviously false. A current example, the NYT front page story on the Corsi book.
The only ethical reason to do that would be to point out how ridiculous or false the statement is. That certainly wasn't done in this case.
Again, Smith used and misused Sanchez' statement only because it moved the anti-Obama / pro-Clinton narrative that he consistently supports.
August 16, 2008 3:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree with you that there is a problem with journalism today with people like Smith who have a bias, in his case being pro-Clinton, but refusing to be up front about it and for those who don't know his angle can be suckered a bit.
In the end, she did say what she said and anyone surfing Politico or any other political website needs to be aware that every "journalist" is going to skew their reporting, whether for ratings, ideology or both.
August 16, 2008 4:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Just surprised that TPM got "suckered" as well.
August 16, 2008 4:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
given all the verbiage that gets thrown out over the web, the importance of words like "may" sometimes gets lost.
August 16, 2008 4:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
So, she claims that half of the dems in the house are Hillary supporters but it's Ben Smith's responsibility to fact check it before he quotes her verbatim? By that logic no one should have reported that John McCain kept referring to "Czechoslovakia" since it doesn't exist.
I agree that Ben Smith is trying to fan the flames here, but it's not Smith's fault that Sanchez is an idiot.
August 16, 2008 3:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh c'mon, you can't see the clear difference??? The reports on McCain referring to "Czechoslovakia" said he was WRONG. That was the whole purpose of the report.
August 16, 2008 4:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Verbatim? This is the Politico headline:
Rep.: Half of House Dems may vote Hillary at DNC
August 16, 2008 4:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's why I don't go their website anymore if I can help it. I think the issue that started all this was that you said she was misquoted. How her quote was manipulated is another issue. But she said it, and in this 24 hour news cycle world, quotes like this will be reported on and discussed, regardless of the validity. It is up to those like you to point out as you did the way it was skewed to make it sound more like a reality than the rantings of loon.
August 16, 2008 4:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
The "verbatim" I was referring to was the quote in the article although I agree that the headline was misleading and that Ben Smith is trying to start shit.
I stand by my original assertion, though, that it's not Ben Smith's fault that Sanchez is an idiot. Politicians know how the game is played and she should frickin' know better.
August 16, 2008 5:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Someone in the Udall campaign needs to do some research and run the following ad capitalizing on Shaffer's bumbling comments.
The ad will show how LITTLE energy companies actually paid in federal taxes during the Bush Administration and contrast that figure with a visual of gas pump prices going up and up and up during the same period.
August 16, 2008 2:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Big Oil is an albatross of deadly weight.
This suggests a possible toxic branding for Oilbama: Big Oil flunky. This branding has the advantage of tying Oilbama to Bush and Cheney -- both iconic Big Oil shills. And as the economy swirls further down the toilet, high gas prices and record Big Oil profits will make a lot of people Mad as Hell that Oilkbama and ONLY Oilbama, not McCain, nor Hillary, Only the sexist Racistr Empty suit that is Barack Oilbama voted for his friend Dick Cheney's Big Oil Energy Bill, which was the worst Energy Bill in American History crafted in Secret by Oil Lobbyists and Cheney and supporters like Oilbama containing Billions of dollars of givaways to Big Oil. Why did gas go to 4$ a gallon? why do we need to drill offshore? Because of Big Oil, Dick Cheney, and Dick Cheney Big Oil Supporters like Barack Oilbama. Oilbama should choose Dick Cheney as his running mate to bring transparentcy in his being in the pocket of Big Oil.
August 16, 2008 2:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
How you doin'? You like to party?
August 16, 2008 5:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Okay, I admit it...I'm starting to like the PUMA Hunter.
August 16, 2008 5:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
He does liven the place up, doesn't he? Gives it a little color!
August 16, 2008 8:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
McCain may have just lost Colorado irretrievably. I think he is in much deeper trouble than some of the other commenters have indicated. Western water law is intricate and fraught with political mine fields. The keystone in the Colorado River basin is the 1922 Compact. Literally, several hundred billion dollars (at least) in economic activity are governed by that compact. [Actually it is probably several trillion.] As with any such instrument, there are many inequities and irrationalities. The problem is that any attempt to update it upsets massive economic interests and expectations. McCain is showing signs of "age" to even talk about this in Colorado since there he is perceived as representing the downstream interests (in addition to beer, his wife purportedly has extensive Arizona real estate and other interests which are heavily water dependent) who want to take water allocations from the upstream users--i.e., Colorado being the biggest target. This is a massive issue all over Colorado.
Now to the political geography. The part of Colorado which perceives itself as itself under greatest threat are the agricultural users. Now here is where this gets especially interesting. The agricultural parts of Colorado have definite Republican tendencies and, for the last several decades, have been a key pillar of the Republican Party in that state. If a Democrat running statewide, cuts into that "residual Republican" vote, he will win statewide by a significant margin. This was a key to how Ken Salazar got into the Senate--he cut into the Republican agricultural vote. McCain has made a very clear statement on this--notice how Senator Salazar jumped all over it in the article if you click on the link--and is now a direct threat to Colorado agriculture. He will not get these voters back--and, it probably seals the fate of Musgrave. Schaefer will have to now cut McCain to have any chance against Udall as will every other Colorado Republican on the ballot.
Now it gets even better. The urban/suburban areas of Colorado are even more threatened than the agricultural interests because under current Colorado law their allocations from the Colorado River are junior to those of agriculture. Colorado real estate developers --who have definite Republican tendencies--will abandon McCain. And, it gets even better when you look at how this upsets settled economic expectations in the other Compact states. McCain has just made it very difficult for anyone in the Compact area to get financing for any activity which is water-dependent because the lender will want to wait until after the election--or demand a very high interest rate--and this is in a tight credit market before McCain opened his mouth.
Color Colorado blue for Obama, Udall just got elected to the Senate and Salazar's staffer just beat Musgrave--plus this does not even consider the impact in the other Compact states.
August 16, 2008 2:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Indeed.
If you are an Arizona senator, it's death to try to fuck around with the water in Colorado, New Mexico, Nevada...
Water is a substance people will kill over in the desert west.
August 16, 2008 3:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
And you better not try and touch the Great Lakes either or you're going to have a Civil War.
August 16, 2008 4:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for the detailed backgrounder. One thing, though, confuses me....
IIRC, the agricultural part of CO is east of the Rockies. I.e., not part of the CO river basin.
I'm sure I must be missing something here.
August 16, 2008 4:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Warren is a traditional conservative Christian in his personal beliefs, but seems to see Christianity beyond the scope of the Dobsons and Perkins crowd. Orange County, where Saddleback is located is the conservative hamlet of California. It is GOP to the core. But, while it may be predominantly pro-life, it is not as homophobic as you might expect. This is a community where almost everyone knows someone that is either gay or has a gay person in their circle of employment or in their family. Once people ACTUALLY know gay people, it's funny how their attitude softens and their views moderate.
August 16, 2008 2:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
that describes every community the world over. perhaps the distinction would be 'openly gay' rather than just 'gay'.
August 17, 2008 10:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
Full blog here - http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/
This makes me feel a little better in that they'll get identical questions. I like the idea of Obama going first as well, though can't see McCain remaining in a "cone of silence" for an hour. Obviously he's not going to be sitting in a sound-proof booth with oversized earphones on listening to ABBA...
August 16, 2008 2:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Whatever else it may or may not be, the Pastor Warren show should be entertaining today.
August 16, 2008 2:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wow. Very courageous of you to stick out your pundit neck on this, Mr. Jonze. By tomorrow we'll all know whether you get to crow or eat crow :-)
I hope you're wrong, but I really don't have a clue myself.
I'd better go set my TiVo now so I don't forget.
August 16, 2008 3:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nah, record Phelps instead.
August 16, 2008 4:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think Warren's in for a surprise. McCain can't talk for five minutes, let alone a full hour, without demonizing Obama.
Demonizing Obama is the cornerstone of his campaign. Hopefully, when McCain starts doing it (and you know he will), either Warren or the crowd will call him on it. Might be fun to watch.
August 16, 2008 4:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
It could be interesting. As you say McCain is seemingly programed to say "Doesn't have the knowledge or experience" every time he mentions Obama, and will probably try and get some "celebrity" digs in as well.
Recently when meeting disabled Vets, he spent more time trashing Obama than he did speaking of his plans/policy ideas. From accounts it didn't play well with the vets.
Now with Obama speaking first, if he does well (fingers crossed) if McCain comes out and tries to trash him it will just make him look silly.
I still don't think there is any way Warren can ensure McCain doesn't get wind of some questions before hand.
August 16, 2008 5:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
I love that Obama goes first. He'll handle himself with class. McCain will commit gaffes and look bad in comparison. I expect it that Obama will do well here overall.
August 16, 2008 8:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nice to see McCain tied in the Gallup with Oilbama. Oilbama should have a big lead at this point. He is surely toast in the general, Superdelagates must dump the Big Oil flunky Oilbama. he voted for Bush Cheney's Big Oil givaway Energy Bill while a Senator. How much will he give to Big Oil if he ever got to be President? How much does he owe Big Oil at this point? He did not vote for Big Oil to help the people of Chicago, there are no Oil Fields in the city, it could only have been for cash in his pocket. It is probably in his freezer if anyone cares to check. IOr maybe he is letting Rezco handle it.
August 16, 2008 2:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, toast is great. I like breakfast - with a smokin' PUMA that is.
August 16, 2008 5:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
i hope mccain have another viagra moment tonight..... obama spoke at warren church before and actually got a standing ovation.....
August 16, 2008 2:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Loretta Sanchez is a silly woman with no political smarts. You don't bash the nominee of your party two weeks before the convention.
August 16, 2008 2:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Over at Strategy '08 we have an analysis up about the July fundraising figures.
http://strategy08.wordpress.com/2008/08/16/july-fundraising-obama-nearly-doubles-mccain-dnc-outraises-rnc/
August 16, 2008 2:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
An addendum to my earlier comment. In Colorado McCain gave the answer to the water question that an Arizona Senate candidate gives--not someone running for President. Makes you wonder whether he is really ready for prime time.
August 16, 2008 2:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Makes me wonder if he was aware which state he was in at the time.
Seriously.
August 16, 2008 4:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Today on electoral-vote.com, Obama is shown leading in states worth 275 electoral votes (5 more than needed to win). That should terrify Obamaphiles. Why? Because ...
On August 16, 2004, Kerry had 327 electoral votes on electoral-vote.com (52 more than Obama does today), yet Kerry was beaten in November 2004 (getting states worth 252 EVs). Kerry lost leads in states worth 75 net electoral votes between August 16 and November 2004.
August 16, 2008 3:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think Obama and his staff have shown quite clearly that he is not redo of the Kerry campaign. It will be a tight race to the end, but I just think looking at Kerry's trajectory doesn't give much insight into how this election will play out.
August 16, 2008 3:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
You apes are capable of distinguishing humans from one another and understand how this time thing works, right? The difference between 2004 and 2008 is like "before I was hungry" and "after I became hungry" except bigger.
August 16, 2008 3:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
That pretty much sums things up. One example, military giving to Obama over McCain 6:1
August 16, 2008 3:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
LOL!
August 16, 2008 3:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Terrify"? Hardly. Motivate? Definitely.
August 16, 2008 3:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
So, tell me, Doc, do you play poker and live in North Carolina? I'm just askin' because my poker buddies and I are always looking for people who believe that the cards that fell on previous flops influence what will come up subsequently to join us.
August 16, 2008 6:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
The entire election could hinge on the water compact issue in Colorado. Obama needs to own it, and every person in Colorado needs to know about it.
August 16, 2008 3:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
This particular gaffe right before the convention in Denver could be, when people look back upon Obama's successful run for presidency, one the keys to the outcome of the election. I have no doubt that if the Obama people have not themselves thought of seizing on this, they will see the wisdom of posters who say they should.
August 16, 2008 4:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Let's hope Obama does. He's running Yucca Mountain ads in Nevada, DHL ads in Ohio, wny not this water issue in Colorado?
August 16, 2008 4:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Just watched one of the Yucca ads for the first time. This is identical, in that he cares about Arizona but not other states. In the end what so many voters are looking for is: do you understand my issues, my plight, my priorities.
August 16, 2008 4:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Some general observations. While the "popularity" meme might be giving the GOP some small traction in the short run, I think it will possibly start to backfire on McCain. The McCain campaign has been struggling to attract and kind of a crowd for the entire summer (recall that FL panhandle event with a country song written for McCain - even there the turnout was less than 1000), thus McCain has to chase crowds (Sturgis) rather than turn them out himself. In response to the popularity smear a good response might be 'well John you have the same opportunities to engage the public and attract (or not) an audience as I do - so quit this whining and get to work!'
They are trying though to turn the Denver Convention Speech into a Liability for Obama and step on any potential "bounce" there... However, I think the idea of both Bush and Cheney speaking at the GOP convention - the fact that several GOP Reps have declined to even attend their convention and the fact that McCain's nomination speech will be the same night as Opening Day for the NFL will have profoundly negative effects for the GOP. I see an Obama bounce and then after the Bush-Cheney speeches that bounce going higher rather than lower... topped off by the obvious fact that even if people watched a McCain speech - at the end of it people will "get it" that McCain has nothing positive to say for himself about the country or a new direction on any front.
If McCain wanted to have a positive and unifying message for his campaign he hasn't shown it yet and it's a little late to start now....
August 16, 2008 4:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Clinton's problem was that she never achieved a winning message early on and stuck with it. McCain is repeating the mistake. "country first" is an after-after-thought of the celebrity meme they're pushing down our throats. Each day that goes by that they keep this strand going without any significant results makes me believe they figure we lost unless we tear him down and this is our only hope of tearing him down.
August 16, 2008 4:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Is Loretta Sanchez to have her ass kicked from the convention.
I suppose this is part of the 2012 Clinton campaign starting already. We make sure Senator Obama does not get elected...
I hope the Democratic party is going to respond to such stupidity...
August 16, 2008 4:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think she is trying to secure the PUMA vote going forward. Little does she realize it's probably less than 500 people that uses the internet as a megaphone of sorts to seem much more important or influential than they really are.
August 16, 2008 4:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
What does Obama have against Wesley Clark? I've never thought he was a strong VP contender, but leaving him off the Convention speech list is another thing altogether.
August 16, 2008 4:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
I remember reading somwehere that Calrk is going to be out of the country on National Security Night - the night they wanted him to speak.
Sorry, no cite for that. I just remember seeing it.
August 16, 2008 4:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Clark's spokesman has said that his schedule is tight, however he could re-arrange it if asked to do so for a Convention spot.
Obama's campaign hung Clark out to dry when the GOP Outrage Machine was out in full force, in fact slamming Clark along with the GOP. I don't believe he was ever a real candidate for his VP because he didn't fit what Obama was looking for, but I figured he'd have a spot to speak at the convention given his stature.
August 16, 2008 5:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Steve Clemons posted this story on HuffPo and cross-posted it to his blog.
Interesting post. Clemons actually engages his commenters on his blog and makes his case pretty well.
I agree that it would be a mistake not to have Clark speak. With McCain grandstanding his ass of re Georgia, we need all the military gravitasse we can get.
August 16, 2008 5:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
McCain is FINISHED in Colorado, FINISHED. TPM get on the story of McCain saying Colorado's water compact and how he was thrown under the bus by BOTH the republican and democratic senate candidates. DONE!
August 16, 2008 6:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
McCain did say that it's up to the States and he would leave it up to the States, he made sure to reiterate that point. However he did say that he believes it should be re-opened because PHX and Cali have boomed and need more water.
So I guess it would become a trust issue, can Coloradans trust an Arizona senator as President to not force the water issue?
Also Obama being a Senator from a Great Lakes State will understand water as a commodity that the south is forever trying to get their hands on. You want to move to a desert, you take the bad as well as the good.
August 16, 2008 7:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
The, "it's up to the states" argument isn't going to fly with this one. People no longer have any illusions about the role that the federal government can have in their everyday lives. And more explitly, the role special interests have in the way our federal government runs. As an Arizona politician, McCain is susceptible to exactly the type of speculation that he's just glibly waltzed into here. He might still think of himself as "Maverick" McCain, but the word is out about how aligned his entire political apparatus is with lobbyists and special interest groups.
This will become a very real issue for him, and if Obama pushes it in any way, one that McCain will have to twist himself in knots over just to find a coherent policy position. Something he can't seem to do even when he's not stepping in it beforehand.
August 16, 2008 8:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not seeing this Colorado water issue elsewhere, so it might be something TPM should look to get out in front of and push.
August 16, 2008 7:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
I just saw it over on DailyKos....I wonder how long before McCain's spokesperson appears to say that he didn't hear the question?
August 16, 2008 8:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, he doesn't seem to hear clearly unless he has a surrogate nearby whispering in his ear.
August 16, 2008 9:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't think most of you guys can fathom LITERALLY how important water is in a state like CO. He got thrown under the bus by BOTH senate candidates and the mild mannerd Ken Salazar. It really only needs to be pushed in CO. Which it already is.
August 16, 2008 9:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
I grew up in West TX....I know full well how important water is in the western states. This is not looking good for McCain. The thing about an issue like this that is really going to hurt him is that it won't have to be picked up by the national media for it to become a problem. The local media will, and apparently already is, savaging him on it.
August 16, 2008 9:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
While it is true that all humans look alike to most apes, I can see that Obama is a far superior candidate to Kerry. Having said that, the GOP nominee has improved his polling position between August and November in all but two elections (1992 and 2000) in the last 35 years.
Thus, Obama being behind where Kerry was at this point in terms of the electoral college state-by-state polling cannot be a good thing for him -- given that Kerry ended up losing.
Today's Rocky Mountain News Poll (reported on fivethirtyeight.com and RCP) showing McCain ahead by 3 in CO confirms Rasmussen and Quinnipiac's findings that CO has swung back to the GOP for now. On top of the VA and NV trend, Obama better hope NM stays in the fold.
August 16, 2008 10:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm sorry that the Hawaiian has come to an end. I mourn for him. Obama, I know, must have cared for him deeply.
August 17, 2008 3:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
+1 for attention to detail.
August 17, 2008 7:25 PM | Reply | Permalink