Obama Already Has Coattails.
So, it’s mid-February, it’s nine months to the general election, and already Barack Obama is showing that he has very real coattails. Yesterday, Donna Edwards, a Maryland lawyer and social activist, won the Democratic primary election for the 4th District over the 8 term sitting incumbent Congressman, Albert Wynn.
This was no small victory for Ms. Edwards. Al Wynn was a popular and long serving representative from a suburban Maryland district not far from the District of Columbia. Donna Edwards had previously challenged Rep. Wynn in 2006, and lost. The difference this time around was the enthusiastic and broad support that Barack Obama’s candidacy brought about, driving younger and more informed voters to the polls simply by appearing on the ballot. This new support was the key to Donna Edwards’ victory against what had become an entrenched establishment candidate.
Again, nine months before the general election is held, and there is already clear evidence of the effect that having Obama on the ballot will have on down-ticket elections come November.
This was no small victory for Ms. Edwards. Al Wynn was a popular and long serving representative from a suburban Maryland district not far from the District of Columbia. Donna Edwards had previously challenged Rep. Wynn in 2006, and lost. The difference this time around was the enthusiastic and broad support that Barack Obama’s candidacy brought about, driving younger and more informed voters to the polls simply by appearing on the ballot. This new support was the key to Donna Edwards’ victory against what had become an entrenched establishment candidate.
Again, nine months before the general election is held, and there is already clear evidence of the effect that having Obama on the ballot will have on down-ticket elections come November.
Advertisement
I have been expecting this, but you spotted a real indicator, I'd say.
February 13, 2008 11:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
Good catch. I wish that the potential for coattails were a bigger part of the primary debate. Obama has finally started hitting it obtusely by criticizing Bill Clinton's failure at party building. Bill Clinton was, in my opinion, an excellent steward of the country, but he was partly responsible for the rise of Tom Delay and George W. I fear that Hillary Clinton would be even worse for the Democrat party in the long run. She would inherit Bill's legacy, and in addition, she lacks his charm, so I anticipate an unpopular presidency and a return of the Republicans in 2010 and 2012 if she were to become President.
Obama, in contrast, has demonstrated charisma, vision, and cross-party appeal. I anticipate that as President, would invigorate the party and extend our gains in the legislature.
February 13, 2008 1:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Genghis! Dude! It is called the DEMOCRATIC PARTY! Only right wing tools are pushing the degrading RAT shorthand .... like W and DeLay who were not in any way, shape, or form Bill Clinton's fault! Geezuz! Bill did everything he could to put up a defense against a total rightwing takeover in the heyday of Gingrich, talk radio, and all out war on liberal anything. They hate that he had over 60% approval ratings during the impeachment and they are scared to death of 8 more years of progress for average Americans, scared to death of healthcare for all Americans, and scared to death of ...... gasp ..... really really rich people not getting anymore tax breaks.
February 13, 2008 11:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
It was a typo, hollywood. Chill out.
Regarding Bill Clinton, I have no doubt that he worked as hard as he could to stop the Republican takeover of the legislature, but he didn't succeed, did he? No coattails for Bill. It's not a failure that I care to repeat.
February 13, 2008 11:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Genghis I am way chill~~ how about a sailing metaphor..... Sometimes the wind is at your back and winning is easy. Just ask the O bomb how hard it was to get past Alan Keyes and into a US Senate seat .... yep kinda easy! Then think about how hard it is to get somewhere when the wind is in your face and MSM thinks you are not any fun to have a beer with. Not gonna be easy ..... so it is in politics as well, and it is most emphatically not your fault which way the wind blows. Recession, terrorist attack, whatever comes up you can only judge folks on what they do DESPITE the opposition they meet. You cannot blame Clinton or anyone for which way the wind is blowing, that is bigger than any one person's ambition. Thank your lucky stars that the wind is at the back of any Democratic nominee this year, and thank all the good people who work on moving this country forward in good times and bad.
February 14, 2008 1:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes this is solid evidence of the coattails.
One other thing: while super delegates are still up in the air which Dem candidates in the 75 "in-play" congressional seats do you think want Hillary Clinton at the top of the ticket? Marsall in GA? Mary Jo Kilroy in OH? Anyone in AZ?
Coattails don't always work top-down. Mark Warner in VA was so popular as gov that i think HE may actually help Obama win the state.
February 13, 2008 5:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
I blogged about the same effect, and its converse, the Hillary effect.
http://thepersonalispolitical.tumblr.com/post/26284440
February 13, 2008 10:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Chris Bowers had a nice post on this (with numbers to back it up!) at open left
February 14, 2008 9:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hey Everybody;
We all need to remember that our first and foremost goal is to put Dem in the White House this time. So let's not forget that in our passion for each of our candidates.
First, by way of full disclosure, I am supporting Obama. Let me also say that as a human rights oriented attorney neither candidate is as far left as I would like.
I want to follow up on Ghengis' first post. During Clinton's Presidency I could never understand what he and Hillary could have done to make the right so angry. From the day after Vince Foster's death the barrage started and did not end until the day AFTER he left office. (Does anyone remember the disgusting commentaries by the Bushies on the networks who were incensed that the Clintons made such fanfare their last day instead of leaving quietly which I guess was the "normal" response of an outgoing President. One commentator actually called him White Trash! It shocked me.)
Then, a few years later I read Blinded by the Right by David Brock and his detailed description of the history of the rise of the Right Wing clarified most of the attack conduct. The Scaife's and Coors family to name two invested endless streams of millions of dollars to grow the Right. And they spent $50M investigating President Clinton-every time a flea blinked back in Arkansas they were on it!
This entire saga was absolutely reprehensible. But here is my concern-Will they do the same thing to Hillary? I think the answer is a clear yes. Completely undeserved-whatever else Hillary may be, it is hard for an honest person to deny her sincerity. In fact upon researching her for his next book (Brock was supposed to demonize Hillary the way he did to Anita Hill) David Brock came to the conclusion that she was noble, if in his opinion, also misguided. He warned his task masters of the Right that he would be unable to trash Hillary because he saw her sincerity and nobility. His reward was to be chucked out of the inner circle of the Right Wing club.
Additionally, did anyone hear Falwell's comment shortly before he died? He said that for his followers having Hillary as a candidate would be the next best thing to Lucifer in the way that it would energize them.
And here is my point. If McCain is the Republican candidate and Obama the Democratic candidate, it is quite possible that the religious Right will simply stay home and not vote. But if Hillary is the candidate they will more likely come out to vote just to keep her OUT! Now I know you can read this everywhere-but I first started feeling concern about this 2 years ago.
And furthermore, IF Hillary could overcome that and win the general election, would that saddle the country with 8 years more years of the acrimony that started in 92 and has not ceased right up today?! I am not patriotic in the conventional meaning of the term-for me human rights trumps patriotism. It is NOT ok to kill someone simply because my government tells me they are an enemy. That being said, I think it would be good fro the country to have a leader who could bring us together and remind one and all that America is one nation with people on both sides of the spectrum.
If any of Hillary's supporters sincerely believe that she can do that better than Obama I welcome your analytic comments.
By the way I do not accept the "experience" argument. I will take inspired idealism coupled with intelligence and good judgment every time. Let's not forget the King of Camelot was 43 when he was elected in 1960, and his next heir apparent was 47, one year YOUNGER than Obama will be next year!
Go Dems!! We must take back the White House. The future of the Supreme Court is at stake! Get ready to unite behind our candidate this summer!
February 14, 2008 10:23 AM | Reply | Permalink