Time.com's Cox: Sorry, Hillary Is Not Inevitable

Comments (28)

js wrote on October 3, 2007 6:14 PM:

Fugg Iowa. Why do we have to kiss their f* asses every 2 years? Fugg Iowa.

dre wrote on October 3, 2007 6:19 PM:

I'm detecting some serious bias for Hillary on TPM. What gives?

kjoe wrote on October 3, 2007 6:37 PM:

Don't worry about tpm. It is all about accessability. They have made the basic business of journalism computation to kiss ass.

If, after Iowa, NH, and super Tuesday she does not have it all locked up, they will condescend to give other candidates a more reasonable share of coverage.

This poll---kind of a hinky one, with its emphasis on supporting Bush's spin and use of general public, regardless of party affiliation or likelihood to vote, is being given huge blanket coverage---while the daily tracking poll of Rasmussen, which has been consistent with the 15-25 point differences is dismissed.

It sets her up for a fall---a 20 point difference---really no change---will sound like they are closing in on her.

dcshungu wrote on October 3, 2007 7:00 PM:

The very notion that Edwards is doing splendidly in Iowa at the moment just throws the credibility of the whole screed out the window, does it not? It would actually be a depressing to Edwards of he is outdone in Iowa, after having staked his entire candidacy on winning it and having been there twice as often as HRC and visiting more than twice the number of the state's 99 counties that she has been to.

Edwards had better win Iowa or all of this would have been a futile 6-year long exercise for him.

rssrai wrote on October 3, 2007 7:00 PM:

It would be nice if TPM or any of the political blogs would come out and endorse a candidate. That way we will understand if there is a bias towards one candidate. I dislike this pretend game that blogs are being unbiased for a candidate when we know they aren't. TPM be honest why don't ya?

js wrote on October 3, 2007 7:07 PM:

Just in case commenters don't know, Josh don't want another Clinton in the WH. Stop slamming TPM if you don't know the fact.

zk0sm0 wrote on October 3, 2007 7:07 PM:

how's about we 'fugg iowa' next time - as in before the candidates have spent so much time and $$$ trying to win the game according to the rules as they are written instead of re-writing the rules halfway through the game to benefit the frontrunner with the most national name recognition and the pockets deep enough to buy the states that cut to the front of the line?

i'm all for michigan giving the finger to iowa and new hampshire if it didn't mean handing the nomination to clinton because the (hypothetical) second tier candidate i support had a strategy to build momentum in the early primaries only to find that those primaries are no longer the early primaries.

Daniel wrote on October 3, 2007 7:13 PM:

Her victory might not be inevitable, but there definitely is a sense that it is. And that is really all Hillary wants at this point: It allows her to get more money, more endorsements... And thus more momentum... and thus more endororsments...

Greg wrote on October 3, 2007 7:17 PM:

right, Daniel, but the "sense" that it's inevitable is purely a media creation, that's the problem.

to other commenters, I'm not sure how this is biased in favor of Hillary...I'm linking approvingly to an argument that she isn't the inevitable winner. where's the pro-Hillary bias in that? that's a real question. I must be missing something...

zk0sm0 wrote on October 3, 2007 7:17 PM:

a 'sense' that the news media is all too happy to help her establish. what with their idiotic obsession with meaningless national polls...

zk0sm0 wrote on October 3, 2007 7:18 PM:

(although those national polls become a lot less meaningless if the primary schedule gets turned on its head...)

B2 wrote on October 3, 2007 7:20 PM:

dcshungu - For the record, Edwards IS doing splendidly in IA, and all the other campaigns know it. No other campaign comes close to the ground support Edwards has in that state. Although they'll never say it publicly, everyone else is essentially battling it out for 2nd and 3rd place.

Liberal Larry wrote on October 3, 2007 7:29 PM:

I will NOT vote for a corporate Democrat.

keith wrote on October 3, 2007 7:29 PM:

Her inevitability is as a result of the national polls . . . and yet there is a disconnect that none of the talking heads can answer. If she's the 800lb Gorilla, why isn't she winning in Iowa? Iowa is very competitive right now (with all three showing leads in various polls) and that doesn't jive with the national polls. The result, discount the local polls.

And before anyone points to the NH poll, remember 55% were still deciding. The other point (which I came across in the NY Times yesterday) is that over 45% of NH voters are registered INDEPENDENT. According to the article (so take it with a grain of salt) is that Obama is making serious inroads with them (and they can vote in either primary).

All of this is to say (which I have repeatedly) is that HRC is running a formidable campaign, but this race isn't over by a longshot.

party-of-one wrote on October 3, 2007 7:32 PM:

Iowa is an example of what happens to the polls when voters have a chance to consider and weigh the very candidates. Hillary's inevitable lead evaporates and its a very close contest. Hillary is spending some of her hard earned Corporate bucks trying to win voters with advertising in Iowa without much result. If Hillary doesn't win Iowa BIG, the rest of the Democrats may wake up and start asking why. They may just start looking hard and her record (if you can find one), her horrrendous judgment on Iraq and Iran, her huge debts of influence to corporate donors, her positions on every side of every issue, her unwillingness to say anything that might alienate any voter, the Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton status quo issue, and the enormous amount of Billary Baggage. If they do, it's not good for ol' Hillary. She doesn't hold up under scrutiny.

hwc wrote on October 3, 2007 8:03 PM:

Iowa is nearly 100% white. Clinton's strength is with mainstream Democratic constituencies -- African Americans, Latino/a, Jewish voters, gay voters, urban voters, and so on and so forth. It's not surprising that Iowa would not be her most natural base. Add in Edward's non-stop campaigning there for six years and Obama outspending her 2 to 1 in ad dollars so far. Despite all that, the polls taken as a whole (RealClear and Pollster) show her with both a lead and an upwards trajectory in Iowa.

slcathena wrote on October 3, 2007 8:05 PM:

Cost has an excellent analysis of the echo chamber effect the media has created tody on Real Clear Politics that is well worth the read.

That WaPo poll was seriously lacking in my opinion. Don't get me wrong, 53% is a big number, and should be reported. But from what I can gather of their results it was 53% of people who are Democrat or Sort-Of Democrat (leaners).

Not registered voters.
Not likely voters.
Not likely primary voters.

Just people who happen to think of themselves as Dems. Leads me to believe they'd be more succeptible to the echo chamber effect, particularly when the NYT deems Obama leading in fundraising as a page 13 story, and HRC leading as a front page story. Nice catch on that one, btw, Greg.

Paula wrote on October 3, 2007 8:21 PM:

Edwards is doing really well in Iowa? He hasn't been ahead in a poll there in months.

oleeb wrote on October 3, 2007 8:22 PM:

Time will tell is she is right of course, but it is true that anyone that gets that "inevitable" label this early is extremely vulnerable for a number of reasons including those Cox gave.

fuzz wrote on October 3, 2007 8:42 PM:

Oh please, people.

First off, TPM is not one person. Do you really think Josh has told everyone else "Hey guys, TPM is secretly pro-Hillary. Slant your articles that way, no matter which candidate you support. But keep it on the down-low."

Really?

But OK, let's take that as a given. Do you really need TPM to come out and tell you they have a bias? Why? Can't you think for yourself? Are you afraid that them telling you they are unbiased when they are secretly pro-Hillary is going to persuade you to vote for Hillary against your will?

Really?

Or maybe you think you're smart enough to see though it but are afraid the people not blessed with your cognitive gifts will be persuaded unfairly?

I wouldn't worry about it.

RaymondA wrote on October 3, 2007 10:09 PM:

Thanks, SLC Athena for the link to Cost's article at RealClearPolitics. It's very sober and sensible, and I'd recommend it to others obsessed with September polling data. His key points: 1) Be suspicious of the methodology of polls that show huge swings in short 2-3 week periods, where there is no obvious outside event; that's a sign that public opinion is volatile and that the swing could evaporate for no profound reason if another poll is taken just a short time away. 2) The candidates themselves know it's not nearly over; Hillary is raising large sums of money now to spend later -- i.e., December -- because she knows that December matters far more than now in terms of people forming the opinion they will actually vote on.

Rasmussen confirms point 1; you can go through his daily numbers for the last six weeks and there are blips along the way that rapidly fade. They show a solid 15-20 point lead for Hillary, with a couple of brief periods where she's ahead by only 10 and a couple where she's up by 25. The fifteen point swing doesn't correspond to any concrete outside events; so there's a huge amount of noise.

I'm not a poll conspiracy theorist; I'm convinced Hillary is substantially ahead - maybe 18-22 points -- but that obsession over any one poll is ridiculous. TPM, seeing itself as a more serious site than others -- and as immune from many of the depredations of the MSM -- should simply post numbers as they come in on its "poll tracker," but it should not do breathless stories on them. That's so MSM. At least hold off until December.

Sincerely,
Raymond A

DonnaG wrote on October 3, 2007 10:41 PM:

A sub-category regarding Hillary's inevitability is the notion that she has been fully vetted, so that by now all the negatives are already out, and the republicans have no new ammunition.

I think that sense of things may be a bit premature. Consider the Hsu matter and what came up a few weeks ago in the Boston Globe:

"Campaign finance records show numerous contributions from Hsu and his associates to Clinton supporters.
In New Hampshire, Senate President Sylvia Larsen's Democratic Caucus committee received $5,000 from Hsu in September 2006; Senator Debbie Stabenow of Michigan collected more than $20,000 from Hsu and his associates; Senator Mark Pryor of Arkansas took in about $11,000; and Senator Dianne Feinstein of California received at least $17,000.
Hsu and his network also gave nearly $50,000 to Senator Tom Harkin of Iowa. Harkin has not endorsed anyone, but his wife, Ruth, is a major Clinton backer.
In addition, Hsu and his associates have contributed tens of thousands of dollars to state and local Democratic Party organizations and candidates around the country, including more than $100,000 to Governor Eliot Spitzer of New York and Attorney General Andrew Cuomo of New York, both of whom have endorsed Clinton. On Feb. 21, Hsu dipped into Chicago city politics, giving $3,500 to Alderman Danny Solis, the brother of Patti Solis Doyle, Clinton's campaign manager."

In addition to what was in the Globe, it turns out that the Gov of NH got $6,000 as well as the NH Senate President getting that $5,000. In MI, it wasn't just Stabenow getting $20,000. MI Gov. Granholm got $17,000.
In Florida, Senator Nelson received $6,200 and bizarrely one lone Republican [former FL CFO] got some Hsu money.

Whether this story gets picked up again and further picked apart is unknown. But, I believe that Hillary's campaign is slated to identify the Hsu bundlees by October 15 for the FEC. Those names going public may provide additional clues to the nature of this bizarre donor network, and its raison d'etre re: selectively choosing recipients, especially those donations of 2006 going to the states of IA and NH, and to the primary calendar spoiler states of MI and FL.

jerzen wrote on October 3, 2007 11:00 PM:

If Hillary is elected President, here's what you can expect -- a slightly more palatable version of "more of the same." Talk about the lesser of two evil -- and not by much.

We will continue to occupy Iraq throughout her Presidency. Soon after her nomination (if not before) we will be in Iran.

In the words of Eugene Debs: "I would rather vote for something I want and not get it than vote for something I don't want -- and get it."

It's been transposed before our eyes (by both the MSM and unfortunately many blogs) into a popularity/money race. I urge people to look at the candidates voting record -- where the substance lies beneath the superficial surface.

Peace!

jerzen wrote on October 3, 2007 11:01 PM:

If Hillary is elected President, here's what you can expect -- a slightly more palatable version of "more of the same." Talk about the lesser of two evil -- and not by much.

We will continue to occupy Iraq throughout her Presidency. Soon after her nomination (if not before) we will be in Iran.

In the words of Eugene Debs: "I would rather vote for something I want and not get it than vote for something I don't want -- and get it."

It's been transposed before our eyes (by both the MSM and unfortunately many blogs) into a popularity/money race. I urge people to look at the candidates voting record -- where the substance lies beneath the superficial surface.

Peace!

mullah cimoc wrote on October 3, 2007 11:05 PM:

mullah cimoc say democrat party of usa just the fraud, not real to resisting iraq war crime.

before last usa election democrat promise ending the war if taking u.s. congress. but all the lie.

him democrat party just to fake resist the war crime. but in true democrat even more the love this war than him ameriki republican.

this to understand:

1. democrat leadership just enough noise for say "We try to stop the war, but the mean pres. bush he preventing us the successful." But whole time democrat leadership know war to continue. this call "plausible deniability".

2. the hillary clinton woman each day to saying kill him muslim, we worship the israel, we so love to kill and make the war.

Why this lie and deception to happen for aemriki people? Answer: Neocon spy yes control usa president bush administration, but if you can believe it possible, neocon controlling democrat party even more. checking the credential of him Congressman rahm emmanuel, some say him so "intrepid".*

*This the play on word. But only him sophisticate knowing about "intrepid". AMeriki need reading this spy book of WWII for the education.

Now all democrat just to obey him master in tel aviv.

for the good and true info: stop1984now@yahoo.com

dcshungu wrote on October 4, 2007 2:01 AM:

First off, TPM is not one person. Do you really think Josh has told everyone else "Hey guys, TPM is secretly pro-Hillary. Slant your articles that way, no matter which candidate you support. But keep it on the down-low."

I would agree. TPM as a whole is not pro-Hillary or pro-anyone in particular because TPM is many people with their take on things.

Josh was NOT pro-Hillary initially because I recall him writing a post in which he'd expressed misgivings about the Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton 'canon'(as in musical form)... but I did not feel at the time that it was a strongly held opinion.

I have no idea where he now stands on this...

Sagacity wrote on October 4, 2007 8:22 AM:

Someone wrote above:
"Edwards had better win Iowa or all of this would have been a futile 6-year long exercise for him."

I don't agree. His candidacy has been very important. It would be great if he won, but even if he doesn't, he has pushed Obama and Clinton to be more progressive. His health plan is the basis for both of theirs. His focus on poverty has reminded people that it should be part of the discussion, especially with the economic uncertainties most
Americans are feeling these days. He has given some great, mostly unreported speeches about the importance of world poverty in foreign policy. I wasn't impressed with him in 2004, but have been this time. And I hope he wins and, if not, stays on the scene.

Lookingforhome wrote on October 4, 2007 9:43 AM:

Cox makes a couple of very good points but then ends (in this quote) with the silly comment about people realizing they can vote the way they want.

Greg's snark on that is totally justified and I don't think shows bias for anything other than good writing...

Post a comment

Name:
Email Address:
URL:
	Remember personal info?
Comments: (you may use HTML tags for style)