Obama Campaign: Hillary's Chance Of Winning Actually Decreased Tonight
Obama spokesperson Bill Burton is out with this statement on tonight's results:
“Tonight was the Clinton campaign’s last best chance to make a significant dent in our lead in pledged delegates and they have failed. In our latest projections, we will win the Texas caucus with a double-digit margin and any pledged delegate shift will be absolutely minimal. In fact, Clinton’s chances of regaining the delegate lead actually decreased tonight, as the number of delegates remaining dwindles."
Notwithstanding the shift in momentum and the P.R. victory tonight's results hand Hillary, it's possible that she'll finish the night without cutting into Obama's delegate lead at all.
On MSNBC a few moments ago Chuck Todd estimated that Hillary might pull seven delegates out of Ohio tonight. Todd also presumes that her Rhode Island victory and Obama's Vermont victory will cancel each other out.
And so, if Obama manages to win delegates out of Texas (thanks to the caucuses) that offset Hillary's Ohio delegate gain, she could end the night in pretty much the same position as she was in yesterday, at least as far as the pledged delegate count is concerned.
She won big victories tonight, no question, but it's unclear yet whether the shift in narrative she'll enjoy will transform the race's stubborn underlying dynamic in any significant way.
The Obama theme should be -- Hillary is fighting a losing battle -
March 5, 2008 1:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well no shit.
If only these primaries had come a couple weeks ago, back when the popular message was "Hillary needs to win BIG to stay in the race." She will probably once again lose delegates (that's 10/10 days where she fails to win the delegate count for the day, I believe) but, for whatever reason, the media is still touting a huge win for her.
Funny, I thought that the press hated her?
March 5, 2008 1:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
This is actually true. Before tonight she needed 55% of the remaining delegates - to more or less tie. Now she needs 60% - which translates to an average margin of more than 64%. Her best victory tonight in RI she got 58% of the votes.
If Obama wins WY & MS, she will need 64% of the delegates which means > 70% of the votes.
Still, not a good night for Obama. I hope he figures out what the heck happened the last 3 days.
March 5, 2008 2:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
We know what happened, Hillary went negative and she gamed the media (by playing the sympathy card) to do it. Hillary is the "Come Back Kid" but she came back by playing dirty. The question is whether or not Obama will do the same thing, or try to stay above the fray. I think he has the luxury of staying above the fray if he wants too, but it's risky. Hillary Clinton is a target rich environment for negative campaigning.
I'm kind of torn. On the one hand, I'm really pissed at Hillary, on the other hand I don't want to see Obama lower himself to her level. I suspect he won't go too negative, or he might try to 'go negative without seeming negative'. Maybe some 527s can crop up. I guess we'll see.
I also wonder what the effect of the republican vote in OH, Limbaugh and others were trying to get republicans to vote for Hillary to boost McCain's chances in the general. If that accounted for 5% of the vote, that would make a huge difference in terms of the 'expectations' game.
March 5, 2008 2:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's quite clear that Hillary applied the Big Lie strategy -- slamming Obama at the last minute with as many smears as possible.
But it's a long way between Texas and Pennsylvania, and as the truth comes out about these smears, they are going to hurt her.
For example, this CBC report totally undoes the lies CTV, Hillary and McCain told about Obama's NAFTA position.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EgxxWhzdhv0
Seeing Hillary parrot McCain's statement on Stephen Harper's smear memo leak is particularly disturbing to any Democrat.
March 5, 2008 7:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think that going negative was only part of it. She also really turned up the energy in her own rallies and this served to excite her own people (something that she had not been doing for a while now). Also, the NAFTA story, silly as it might have been, was an unforced error on Obama's part. No one should have denied that any meeting ever happened when it turns out a meeting did happen. Even if the memo was not an accurate reflection of what was said, the fact that our campaign denied that any meeting ever occured made us look deceitful when the memo was produced. I hope that the campaign has learned an important lesson about complete candor in these situations.
March 5, 2008 8:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
Agreed.
March 5, 2008 9:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well, the thing is this...Superdelegates are only used when the party is severely split, and it is. The number of actual earned delegates that BO has over HRC is relatively insignificant compared to the importance of general election battle ground states, and the fact that the popular vote is at 45%/45%; equal support from democrats for both of them. It is quite conceivable, given HRC's wins of general election battleground states, coupled with the popular vote being equal, and add to that her hands on experience living in the white house and 8 very successful years in the US Senate, for the Superdelegates to determine that she is the best nominee to beat McCain, once she is formally noiminated. Whatever polls are out there right now concerning the general election are no where near reality, once the DNC is behind their candidate.
March 5, 2008 2:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
And we all know how effective the DNC has been.
March 5, 2008 4:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think the old flip-flopping Rush Limbaugh strategy of first 'keep her in so we (republicans) can win' to 'take her out and end all doubt' to the most recent 'keep the fight going vote Hillary' waffling has reflected this entire Tuesday election.
March 5, 2008 2:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
I agree with you jefo.
What happened to Obama was talkradio and Limbaugh.
Hillary and Bill have proved that racebaiting and fearmongering work. America is willing to judge a person by the color of their skin still and that was shown over and over in OH. It didn't help that the NAFTA snafu made Obama look deceitful. Unintentionally or not, Goolsbee should be considered radioactive and jettisoned by the campaign no matter what his stature is. He works for himself to even have implied, suggested or inferred that Obama was 'all rhetoric' when it came to NAFTA. Obama has been consistent about NAFTA his position did not change when he started campaigning.
Folks like Limbaugh and Bill Clinton who use hatemongering and fear to build a winning majority are the reason many Americans and especially black Americans are unable to be proud of this country. In the end, race trumphs everything in America. Hillary is even willing to pit browns vs. blacks if it means she will win. Her supporters are all about identity politics and the worst of identity politics, pitting women against men and blacks vs. browns and accepting fighting, bickering and dissension rather than strong leadership to govern this nation.
The lesson of last night is divisiveness reigns.
March 5, 2008 9:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
Once the dust settles a bit this day will be very much like Super Tuesday, and Obama will have, at worst, battled Clinton to a standstill. He will continue to hold a 100+ pledged delegate lead. Thats the only number that really matters. The rest of the "analysis" provided by the pundits is mere mental masturbation.
March 5, 2008 2:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
I also forgot to mention that Obama will also announce that he has raised 50+ million in February and the story shifts back to Obama and his fundraising prowess. He's still the front runner and Clinton can't get enough momentum to overcome his lead.
March 5, 2008 2:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
And, if Brokaw isnt lying, he has over 50 SDs in the wings, as it were...
March 5, 2008 2:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
Plus, (Hopefully) two victories on Saturday and next Tuesday should boost his delegate numbers going into PA.
It's Hillary's right to do all this shit, but god damn is it obnoxious.
March 5, 2008 2:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
The Obama theme should be: a vote for me is a vote for McCain. His "winning" the caucus in Texas afer losing the popular vote proves how misleading his "victories" have been. He will get clocked by McCain in November. He should cede the race to Hillary now (or after Penn. would be better) and then team up with her to win in November. If he gracefully bowed out, he'd clinch the party's victory. This should be about DEMOCRATS winning in Nov. He can't win except as a democrat campaigning for Hillary.
March 5, 2008 2:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
If Obama get the nomination, are you saying that you Hillary supporters won't swallow your pride and vote for him?
This proves the longer this Dem race goes, its tearing this party apart.
Enjoy 2008 John McCain presidency.
March 5, 2008 2:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'll vote for whichever Democrat wins more pledged delegates. No way I'll vote for a candidate who "wins" only by bending the rules or having it thrown to them by the SDs in contradiction of the pledged delegates.
If the SD throw the nomination, then I've absolutely had it with the Dems. They've lost repeatedly by fielded awful candidates. Protecting the status quo against an insurgent reformer who's actually more viable and won more pledged delegates, that would be the final straw.
The whole SD system is undemocratic and frankly shouldn't exist. Most people didn't know much about them till reently so it's not as though thier authority has ever been ratified by the people.
Hillary should drop out as she can no longer catch Obama. The SD's shouldn't even exist, but since they do, they should also pledge to follow the elected delegates, and make clear the SD will not overturn the primary and caucus results.
March 5, 2008 5:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
Should they "pledge to follow the elected delegates" on a national level with only a small difference between the candidates or should they "pledge to follow the elected delegates" from their respective states and districts? It is sort of an important question because the two results aren't necessarily the same.
March 5, 2008 7:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
His blowing out the caucus after narrowly losing the primary proves that his supporters are more reliable. Some percentage of the populace might slightly prefer Clinton to Obama, but they don't care enough one way or the other to stick around for her. Where as a much larger portion of the populace is committed to seeing Obama win and will do what ever it takes to defeat Clinton or McCain.
March 5, 2008 2:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
[quote]His "winning" the caucus in Texas after losing the popular vote proves how misleading his "victories" have been.[/quote]
Cut the crap. They knew the rules, they played in the same field, they gave their best and tomorrow morning we'll see the results. Not the stats about who run more or less yards. Results, as in delegates.
This whole spin about what counts and what doesn't is full of BS.
This is America, those are the rules.
Presidential elections have been won with 44% of the votes. If it were Europe, that would implied a second tour. But in America, those rules put Clinton in the White House.
Presidential elections have been won despite a loss in popular vote. If it were Europe, that would have been a loss. But in America, those rules put Dubya in the White House.
So, like it or not, this is how works.
Stop whining.
March 5, 2008 2:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
You're grasping at straws. Polls have always showed Obama beating McCain more easily. And you Hillary supporters have a very poor record at predicting the future. So please shut up.
March 5, 2008 3:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
Or, "Hi, I'm a dumbass Hillary supporter and I don't base anything I say on reason or fact!"
Hey, turns out that if you look at any of the polls, it is painfully obvious McCain would destroy Hillary in the general, and Obama would do very well against him. It DOESN'T matter who gets a few percent more in a primary, that doesn't show anything useful about being able to carry the state in November. And contrary to dumbass here, you DO need more than just core Democrats to win general elections in swing states, they are all open elections and independents and swing Republicans are key, and Obama does very very well in these areas, and Hillary does the opposite. Check this out, this is probably one of the better breakdowns of general electability I have found, and one of the only, because for some reason people don't like to talk electability using actual data:
http://thepersonalispolitical.tumblr.com/post/26659785
Look, she can't win Iowa, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Pennsylvania, Washington, Oregon, Virginia...these aren't really swing states, and she can't even carry these, while Obama easily can. So what if she does well in big states that Kucinich could probably win, ANY Democrat could win. Just because Hillary beat Obama by 10% in California doesn't mean he can't easily carry it in the general, same goes with Massachusetts, New York, New Jersey...he already does better than Hillary in New Hampshire, which almost loses to McCain. Don't be idiots.
March 5, 2008 5:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
Same kind of polls that said McCain was a goner in December, or that Huckabee was on the rise, or that Hillary would lose in New Hampshire...
You know, if they can't get polls close for an election 2 days from now, what makes you think it'll be close for 9 months away? And with McCain, we're talking about off by 40% or so.
March 5, 2008 6:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
FYI: The Texas Caucus
Perhaps understanding how the Texas Primary-Caucus works and its purpose will help alleviate concerns and erase any doubts people may have.
Texas has a 3-tier caucus system. Tonight we completed the first tier. The second-tier takes place 29 March at the Senate Convention. The third-tier will be completed in June when the State Convention takes place. So the actual number of delegates won will not be determined until then.
The Texas caucus gives ordinary voters the opportunity to become a delegate. My precinct was allowed sixteen delegates and 16 alternative delegates. Iam an alternative delegate which basically means if one of the delegates cannot attend the senate caucus one of the alternative delegates will take that person's place. If all sixteen cannot attend, then all 16 alternative delegates will attend instead.
I understand it sounds bizarre, but its importance cannot be ignored. Think of what it means for an ordinary voter to have the rare opportunity to participate as a delegate.
I think it is awesome.
March 5, 2008 2:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
I have a question: will it be possible to have an estimate of the caucus delegates sometimes soon (say, tomorrow) or it is necessary to wait for all this steps to take place?
For other states, I've seen the NY Times making only the most conservative pledged delegates estimates. I assume it is due to similar processes in other states. But at the same time most other sources dare to go forward and achieve similar estimates as to what the distribution of delegates will be when all steps have been covered.
March 5, 2008 2:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
Assuming the tools and info I used are valid, though many precincts still haven't reported, I came up with this initial estimate of primary delegates:
Obama 67 delegates
Clinton 59 delegates
Here's what I used:
Calculator: http://www.lonestarproject.net/DemPrimary.htm
Results: http://precinctconventionresults.txdemocrats.org/election08district
March 5, 2008 5:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
ami,
You should post that to a TPM blog and if possible, email it to Josh at talk@talkingpointsmemo.com
Did you print or save your results somehow? If your numbers are right, and Chuck Todd is right about OH, then Obama comes out ahead in delegates for the night, even without counting the results of the TX caucuses yet.
March 5, 2008 8:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
Obama lost big tonight. He had the lead and the supposed momentum. He failed to land a knockout punch. He loses going forward by attrition--he has yet to prove he can win a serious closed primary state. As he gets more scrutiny, like NAFTA, the Rezko trial, his Illinois votes, his committee failure in the Senate, and who knows what comes out next, his base erodes. Obama's lack of campaign experience, and lack of real experience overall is showing in his self-inflicted debacles over the past several weeks. He may be a fast learner but I don't see him turning this trend around. As well, the media has been shamed into being more inquisitive. Clinton is a survivor and she'll make the most of all this. You can call this negative or whatever you want but this is all pretty tame stuff. In the end, Obama is damaged goods and even if a draw or a slight lead come the convention, the superdelegates will have to stick with Clinton for the sake of the party in the general election--they are mostly elected officials and are not likely to want to commit political suicide by backing a loser. And by the way, however this works out, it is a win for the Democrats as they are in the news and the party is energized. In comparison, what's McCain do to stay in the news?
March 5, 2008 2:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
On what planet is being down by 20 having the lead? That's an absurd statement and you know it.
He didn't lose his lead. He erased hers, and at the end of the day he has the about same number of delegates he started with.
This was her chance to get some blow-outs and cut into his overwhelming lead, and she blew it. She can be happy that she barely managed to hold onto her leads, but ultimately that isn't nearly enough.
March 5, 2008 2:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
Mr. Weaver-
Your message is slightly more effectice than Marc Penn's messaging.
I hope this makes you proud.
Go America!
March 5, 2008 4:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
12 out of the last 15 go to Obama. I can handle that trend continuing.
He battled back from 20 point deficits and HRC only won by getting ugly. That worked now. It's going to backfire hard in the near future.
March 5, 2008 4:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
This Weaver guy is on crack or something.
March 5, 2008 5:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
Barack Obama has won twice as many states overall, leads substantially in the popular vote and continues to hold a mathematically insurmountable lead in elected delegates.
What other facts are ultimately relevant?
March 5, 2008 9:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
haven't seen you around here for a while, matthew, which was nice. life without your blind comments was actually pretty nice. your point about the media being shamed into inquisitiveness is shockingly ignorant. fairness would dictate that the media be asked to treat the candidates the same, but HRC basically forced them to go after BHO and give her a pass. poor poor hillary, we have been so mean to her. blah blah blah.
It's clear that there is no way the she can win the nomination, now it's just self important arrogance and greed for power.
I used to like her, but now with all these claims which, on the surface sound like they have substantive, but in reality are pretty baseless, I can not stand her.
good on you for sticking beside the candidate which will damage the democratic party.
ps, all that stuff about big states, those unimportant red states and such is utter BS that it's laughable. HRC remember your Arkansas, unimportant red state roots.
March 5, 2008 10:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
Although people argue the contrary, I believe the longer this goes on, the better the chances for McCain in November. After all that's happened, I myself am going to need A LOT of time to used to idea of voting for her in November.
The thing that needs to be clear to Hillary supporters at this point is that her only path to the nomination involves overturning the pledged delegate count.
March 5, 2008 2:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
Between 200 - 300 people from 2 precincts came to caucus tonight which is a big deal considering past elections less than two-dozen at best have shown up to caucus in my precinct. Over 100 caucus goers from my precinct went for Obama and only 32 for Hillary. Likewise more went for Obama from the other precinct, but there was less disparity in numbers.
The past two weeks everyone I spoke with said they were voting for Obama. I did not talk to one person who was voting for Hillary. Therein I find it surprising she won more popular votes than Obama. But that is my tiny microcosm in Texas.
Iam disappointed that Texas did not deliver a huge win for Obama. But I guess Hillary going negative and lobbing false accusations had its advantages. Iam sure she will continue hammering her "vast" experience.
March 5, 2008 2:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
I suggest you move to another neighborhood where people are more normal. Too much latte distorts perception (and is bad for the heart).
Really, just because you didn't happen to talk to "them" doesn't mean they're not out there. Look at the X-Files.
March 5, 2008 6:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
Wow, you're completely right!!! After such a great comment like that, I just love your candidate now! I can't wait to be involved in a party full of people like you in charge...you're great mister and so witty, too!
March 5, 2008 7:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
The negative campaign path that HRC has taken is tearing the party apart, and what is it gaining? Certainly not delegates for her.
McCain has a general election problem with his base. The only solution to his problem is for HRC to get the nomination. The republican base will rally, and independents will flock to him as well.
It is not Obama who is tearing the party apart, it is HRC.
Congratulations to everyone who rewarded HRC for going negative with their votes. And so much for her high-minded calls to have a presidential race based on issues. Didn't she slam Obama for playing to the Republican playbook earlier in the campaign? She certainly advanced the republican playbook muslim-smear campaign ahead a few inches...
And what about her "change you can Xerox" criticism in the debate? I think she was "Xeroxing" the 'yes we can' slogan tonight in her victory speech...what was it, 'yes we will?' with the crowd chanting 'yes she can?' That campaign can't even craft a clear message when stealing a slogan.
Going negative and stealing campaign slogans. Boy, she really is the candidate of solutions.
March 5, 2008 2:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Obama lost big tonight."
Rhode Island -5
Vermont +3
Ohio -7
Texas -4+8
Total -5
If that's "big" then we're in wonderful shape.
March 5, 2008 2:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
It is Obama that is tearing the party apart. He and his Cult following, plus the vocal online community, are wanting to take the party over. It won't work. And, if it does, it seals the party's defeat in November.
Clinton is mainstream, she's a credible alternative to McCain. Obama is a flashy new face but really showing that he's a wolf in sheep's clothing. His inexperience and conflicting positions, such as NAFTA, and previously picking Reagan and Republicans over Clinton and Democrats, and so, so many other areas shows his lack of knowledge and respect for the Democratic party. Obama has not shown the ability to win against Clinton and he surely can't win against McCain.
I want a real president, I want hope and change. Obama has offered change but has not done anything whatsoever to credibly suggest he can deliver. He's not a Clinton or McCain. My vote is for Clinton first, McCain second. Obama doesn't even fit in the equation.
March 5, 2008 2:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
my guess is that you voted for Bush in at least one of the past two elections.
either way, I do not believe that the establishment has done such a good job these past 2 election cycles; in the executive branch or the legislative branch. Its the establishment that has brought us a costly war, dollar depreciation and an economic recession. And since I have lived abroad during this time I can say that our national image abroad has been damaged in the process. No big deal except when we have to scare up coalitions of the willing...
It will be thanks to people like you that the democrats snatch defeat from the jaws of victory this election cycle. That is what democracy is about, so we must all live with it. I won't be voting for either HRC or McCain. Nader looks pretty good from over here if those two are in the general election.
March 5, 2008 3:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
Let us apply a little reality to your post.
Indeed. Your inane cult meme aside, it is time for the failed old guard to retire. Time to put behind the fights that greyed your beard. Please provide evidence. All recent polls show that Obama does far better against McCain than Clinton does. Please, show me one--just one--shred of evidence for your claim. This makes no sense. Are you saying you would rather just follow the other sheep? Or that Obama only looks harmless but is in fact a fiercely efficient team-oriented combatant? 'Cause neither really helps your cause. Please cite one--just ONE--instance where Clinton's experience allowed her to make the right choice and Obama did not. Iraq? Nope. Iran? Nope. Pakistan? Nope. Afghanistan? Nope. Kosova? Nope. Bankruptcy law? Nope. Please provide quotes of these "conflicting positions." Here, let me give you an example (unfortunately this is Clinton because there are no examples for Obama and plenty for her):"I Think On Balance NAFTA Has Been Good For New York And America."
And:
"I never supported NAFTA."
Obama thinks we should probably learn from the past to be able to get progressive ideals accepted again in the mainstream. Clinton thinks we should stick our heads deeper in the sand and pretend everything is great and that Democrats have been always winning since 1980. Please provide specific examples. I think fearmongering, racism, religious messaging, voter suppression and lying are pretty disrespectful toward the Democratic party and that is all in Clinton's court. Uh, yeah he has. Just because Clinton does not have the class to thank her supporters when she loses does not mean there was no contest. Again, all polls show Obama beats McCain by far wider margins than Clinton. When you have any evidence to the contrary, please post it. I will not be holding my breath.March 5, 2008 3:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
That has to be one of the worst excuses of "political analysis" I've heard in a while.
You don't honestly think Hillary will have it THAT easy against McCain do you? Polls NOW show her losing to him. Granted that could drastically change by November, but I have a feeling it wont be for the better if she wins the nomination. I know a lot of Obama supporters who refuse to vote for Hillary... and would even vote for McCain to make sure she doesn't get in. McCain will capitalize on that big time.
And what has Hillary done to "change" anything? I'm not an Obama supporter, but have you looked at her record? By your remarks it's obvious you haven't. Neither her, nor Obama, nor McCain scores well on any marks in the Senate.
March 5, 2008 3:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
"He's not a Clinton or McCain."
I know, he's a Democrat.
March 5, 2008 7:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
What shift in momentum? Clinton blundered nearly twenty-point leads.
March 5, 2008 3:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
very big win for hillary. obama camp are already trying to pretend that as a very insigneficant, but, they know it is not true. with big spending machine on ads ( 3 times more than hillary's), it is very hard to admit a defeat.
March 5, 2008 3:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
I always found this argument very amusing.
"Oh dearie old me, I am being picked on because I failed to make my case so people like the other guy more and are giving money to him instead of me. It is so unfair!"
March 5, 2008 3:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
Mtag, when you learn how to write a complete sentence at the level of a 5th-grader, people might take you more seriously. In the meantime, the fact that Obama came back from a 25-point deficit in these states, took Vermont, appears to be taking Texas (pending the final caucus results), it's Clinton who blew her big chance. This was her one opportunity to cut into Obama's delegate lead, and she failed miserably.
Tonight is either a draw, or Obama actually gains a delegate or two. A complete, utter humiliating failure for the Clinton team. I'm a fence-sitter but we need to end this nominating contest and focus on McCain. This drawn-out fight is not helping us here!
March 5, 2008 4:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
Has anyone done the math with new primaries or caucuses in MI and FL, which is looking more and more likely?
March 5, 2008 3:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think Obama could win MI. We'll see. It's always been absurd that Hillary would claim that she was entitled to MI's delegates, despite Obama not even being on the Ballot.
March 5, 2008 3:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
The path to victory is not with pledged delegates. neither can get enough to win. Only the supers can decide this contest and the question is how will they go? Will they go with their state delegate count? State popular vote count? National delegate count or national popular vote count?
I think enough of the supers will wait to see how the contest unfolds, probably until the convention. Then they will vote to give the nomination to who ever the average American perceives "fairly" won it. If Obama wins the most Texas delegates and Clinton the popular vote it won't be perceived as "fair." Clinton will push that idea and if she gets the popular vote nationwide she'll get the nomination. If obama gets the popular vote he'll get the nomination. Especially since he will get the most pledged delegates.
There is a small possibility of a back room deal where Obama wins both the popular vote and the pledged delegates but Clinton gets the nomination. Only way I see that is if he accepts the vp slot as part of that deal and is sufficiently committed to it to sell it to the American public. It would be a tough sell even for him and take all of his rhetorical skills to make it fly.
March 5, 2008 3:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
Not once it sinks into the Dem SDs that HRC endorsed McCain over Obama. I have a lot of trouble believing even deeply cynical politicians will let that go lightly. You can screw the country, but not the party.
March 5, 2008 4:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
I hope the Obama team latch on to that, I only recently in the past 2 days have watched the MSM pick up on this story from mainly Keith Olbermann. Will the Obama camp get the MSM to focus on the malicious non-democrat like attacks that the HRC have made in the last several days insuring her Tuesday win, or will the MSM remain blind to it and hype her streak break primary victories instead.
March 5, 2008 5:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
I hadn't thought of that, but you may be spot on. Only Republicans eat their own young...Democrats are usually better than that.
March 5, 2008 5:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm confused. If primaries are about delegates, and all things considered there is no way Mrs. Clinton can surpass Mr. Obama in delegates and go on to win the nomination, then why is she still running?
March 5, 2008 4:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
We're now faced with two possibilities:
1. Clinton successfully mud slings her way to the nomination, loses general in a way that would make Mondale feel better about himself. Epic fail.
2. Clinton doesn't slime her way to the nomination, but pre-smears Obama enough that McCain can keep pouring it on. By the end, Obama's in Guantanamo for his lack of patriotism, McCain is in White House. Epic fail.
Thanks a lot, guys. Democrats: stealing defeat from the jaws of victory since 1968.
March 5, 2008 4:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
Matthew, I'm a fence-sitter here but you are without doubt an idiot. Obama was behind some 20-25 points in these states before. He won Vermont handily. Also looks like he's won in Texas-- just about a tie in the primaries and a clear, big win in the caucuses.
In fact, not only did Hillary fail to even remotely dent Obama's delegate lead tonight, she'll at best tie and may even fall further behind by a delegate or two.
I'm a Democrat above all who just wants to see this damn idiocy come to a close and a nominee declared.
It's clear that Hillary will never catch Obama now-- Obama has a big lead in delegates, in popular vote, and in states.
IT'S OVER!! The Democratic Party needs to unite behind a candidate, and if Hillary actually cared about the Party and the country's direction, she would step aside.
March 5, 2008 4:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
He's right, it looks good for her for people who don't know any better, but she is out of comeback states. The math doesn't add up.
And I seem to remember someone telling us it was a delegate contest, and states don't matter :P
March 5, 2008 5:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
It is a delegate contest.
And Florida is a pretty big state by the way.
The fact is that Obama wins in a lot of states that will go Republican in November and he does tend to lose in the big states that Dems must win in November.
And there are no caucuses in November either.
The argument that super delegates must follow the vote of pledged delegates is just that, an argument and not a rule.
The fact is that super delegates were invented to specifically not vote in lockstep with elected delegates' votes.
HRC was the big winner last night. She just was and to deny that obvious fact is both churlish and stupid.
Is it enough to allow her to swing enough super delegates to win the nomination? I doubt it.
But Obama's aura of inevitability has been dimmed a tad and his clay feet are showing.
I've viewed the Obama craze the same way I viewed America's march into Iraq (which by the way was supported by 85% of our fellows).
More conversation and debate was needed then and more is needed now.
Anyone who has a problem with that obviously has a problem with democracy.
And shame on them for that.
March 5, 2008 6:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
Wow, "anyone who has a problem with that has a problem with democracy"? So now Clinton supporters are picking up neocon talking points? Just because Limbaugh is suggesting people vote for Clinton doesn't mean you have to adopt his memes.
March 5, 2008 7:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't follow Limbaugh so am not sure of your reference.
I assume that rather than answer my points you are capable of nothing but smear by association.
Yet another repulsive feature of too many Obabots.
March 5, 2008 7:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
Your points are fine, and I agree it was a big win for Clinton. However, you keep saying people in your own party don't like democracy or aren't patriotic enough and that argument is a crock of shit.
It's not a smear to say Republicans talk that way about those of us who don't support conservative ideals, you don't have to follow the guy to morph into that type of person, which you have. But your Obabot or Obamabotic or cult comments or whatever is indeed colorful and not at all a smear of millions of people. I of course don't know you personally, maybe you're a great and reasonable guy, but it doesn't show in your comments.
March 5, 2008 9:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
Nice example
March 5, 2008 12:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
"HRC was the big winner last night."
Uh, no. It would've been a 'big win' for her if she had defeated Obama by the same margin that he defeated her in any of the last 12 contests. It would've been a big win for her if it had somehow changed the equation. As it stands, she frantically spent two weeks and millions of dollars trying to slime Obama, and ended up vaporizing her huge lead. Remember how far ahead she was two weeks ago? Imagine if she had *kept* that lead, and widened it. That would be a 'big win.'
I think the term you meant was 'desperately needed win.'
March 5, 2008 12:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
the next few days will be all about SPIN SPIN SPIN...The media will be glowing about HRC today, and come thursday the media will come down of its high and look at the delegate race and see that she didnt really gain much.
I am predicting that by the weekend, the calls for her to quit will be returning. NO one will say anything now, they will let her bask in her wins, but by the weekend and early next week, the calls will be back on for her to suspend her campaign...
March 5, 2008 6:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
The night was a wash in delegates at best for HRC. Kos says maybe plus 1 at best for Hillary. When the Tx caucus delegates are awarded it will be a net gain for Obama. Why does HRC go on? Hoping to keep it close enough she can win with the Supers. Not gonna happen.
March 5, 2008 6:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
I am a firm believer in the "focus on the delegates" mantra coming from the Obama camp - not just because I'm an Obama supporter, but also because I think it's the only way to read the outcome of an election (2004 springs to mind). But there's something that's bugged me all along about the delegate allocation process, and it bugs me even more tonight. In many states, delegate tallies are being made based on county vote counts, but the delegates aren't actually awarded until state conventions in late spring or so. I remember hearing that in WA, at least, there was additional confusion because Obama supporters showed up and then left, so when it came time to choose the actual PEOPLE to send to the convention, Hillary supporters were the only ones left. With all the talk of Hillary's strategy relying on superdelegates, MI and FL, I wonder if we're missing something? Is Hillary fighting the spin war so hard in order to convince not just superdelegates, but also state delegates, to support her at their conventions? For example, the Clinton camp is threatening "challenges" to the TX caucus system, but obviously they would need to think long and hard about the damage filing a lawsuit would do to their image and to the party. Would a concerted effort to win over TX caucus delegates before the state convention in June be a more palatable, and ultimately successful, strategy? The argument seems straightforward enough: "we won the state vote count, we should win the delegates." Is it possible that this is what they're trying to do?
March 5, 2008 6:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
The saddest thing about the smear campaigning is that voters are swayed to vote against their own interests. NAFTA in Ohio is the clearest example. While neither candidate will truly overturn trade agreements, HRC clearly has the stronger ties to big business. She is using the well known Republican ploy of accusing her opponent of doing that which she herself is doing. Not only does that sow doubts in voters' minds, it also blunts any similar attack from the other side.
If Clinton did somehow manage to secure the Democratic nomination, I would support Obama as a third party candidate.
March 5, 2008 6:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
Come on, PA! Defeat the Succubus!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
March 5, 2008 7:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
You are absolutely correct that, if Senator Obama, sweeps the Texas caucus after losing the secret ballot primary vote, then that shows that his campaign has mastered the art of the caucus. I have no qualms with that: rules are rules, and so long as the campaign played by the rules, it is entitled to whatever delegates that can be garnered.
But there is another dimension that can be gleaned as a result of a caucus win on the same day as a primary vote loss. And that is that a caucus is not the same as a Baker v. Carr inspired one person, one vote election. Nor does it respect the sanctity of the secret ballot. A win yes, a means to accurately measure popular sentiment? Yes and no, at best. In a moral sense, Clinton supporters can and should claim the upper hand, the democratic hand, small "d". They should claim it because it's true.
March 5, 2008 7:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
Can they claim the upper hand in places like VA, MO, MD, and WI?
Obama is winning both. Please don't spin this like the MSM. The fact that Obama supporters are organized 1,000x better than her supporters is a GOOD thing.
March 5, 2008 8:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
No but they can claim the upper hand in California and Texas and Ohio, etc.
Look, I don't have any intention of denigrating Obama's quite wonderful and most impressive campaign.
But he doesn't have the campaign won.
If he wants to have it won then all he has to do is earn the required number of delegates.
But Obama and too many Obama supporters don't want him to win the old fashioned way, by claiming a majority of delegates.
They want him to win by making his competition quit before the has been won.
I suggest that Obama fans contact their local super delegates and use their ObaPowers to force them to commit to Obama.
Once enough do that the campaign is over. Simple isn't it?
Until then it is still an open battle, a democratic battle, one that the Democratic party should be happy and proud to wage.
March 5, 2008 8:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
Lot of denial going on here at TPM. This site is better when confronting the obvious: such as that Albert G. is a dishonest AG. The democrats have rigged up an election where it is difficult to come out of it with the strongest candidate possible. This makes it hard to see but yesterday clarified things for those with eyes unafraid to see. Hillary attracts the base democratic voters--the lunchbucket, the Reagan dems in winnable states, whatever you want to call them. Obama gets AA votes (his only dem base vote, who will vote for the dem cand. b/c they understand elections are not just games), the so-called wine trackers with their high degrees, and crossover republicans, distinct from Reagan dems (not all of whom are committed to him). Obama is in many ways an attractive candidate. But he cannot win in a GE. That's what yesterday and Super Tuesday proved. I wish that were different but it is not. You think those Southeastern Ohio voters will vote for him in the GE? No way. Kerry didnt get them either. Clinton did and does. McCain will crush Obama in the GE. He needs to back out gracefully by the end of April or he is going to destroy the party.
TPMers need to put this election in the context of past dem. GE elections since '68 (some noble candidates) and then take a hard look at Obama. Do you want to beat McCain or do you want to pat yourself on the back for voting for another losing candidate?
If it is the latter, I hear Nader is running this year too.
Wake up before it is too late.
March 5, 2008 8:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
It amazes me that HRC supporters state that since Obama didn't win OH, CA, NY TX primary, etc. that he can't win "big states." Are they saying if Obama is the Dem nominee, they'll sit at home and not vote in November? Don't both HRC and Obama supporters want a Dem in the WH?
I volunteered for weeks, and voted and caucused for Obama yesterday. If HRC is the nominee, I'll vote for her. But I probably won't volunteer. Which I think one commenter pointed out. Obama has the people momentum to get out there and work for him. I didn't see much for HRC where I live.
March 5, 2008 8:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think it fair to say that just as some Obama supporters would not vote for HRC, some of her supporters will not vote Obama.
But that proves nothing.
And I don't know of anyone who says that because Obama lost CA that he could never win it in the GE. If that were true it would be just as true that HRC could never win where Obama beat her.
Both ideas are absurd on their face.
The real point is, as opposed to the strawman argument, is that Obama and HRC's respective victories show them to be stronger than their opponent in their respective wins and thus somewhat more capable of defeating McCain there.
This is obviously subject to many objections, not least that it is much like any poll taken some eight months out from the GE: pretty worthless.
Having said that we should recognize that many of Obama's wins are in states that Dems are very unlikely to carry in November and many others are in caucus states.
You do not have to be an HRC fan to note that caucuses are inherently less democratic and thus less representative of the voters' will than primary elections.
I want to stress that I do not mean to write off Obama's wins in caucuses. They are wins and they do demonstrate his organizational skills and campaign planning and supporters' zeal. But primaries they ain't and they should not carry the same weight in the over all balance of things.
Anyone who doubts this need only look at TX where HRC won the primary vote but lost the caucuses.
Which proves that, despite the inanity of the Texas system, it has proven a great civics lesson don't you think?
March 5, 2008 9:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Having said that we should recognize that many of Obama's wins are in states that Dems are very unlikely to carry in November and many others are in caucus states."
Texas will not go to Hillary in the general.
Ohio will be a swing state no matter who is nominated.
It sounds like you advocating a change in the rules. Until Democrats change their nominating procedure, this is what they get. And, yes, the Super delegates will decide this election. I believe they will go with Candidate who has won the popular vote and the most pledged delegates, which will probably be Obama.
Now, if somehow Hillary and Obama split the popular vote... it's gonna be one ugly convention.
March 5, 2008 9:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
See man, that was a great comment! Reasonable, makes sense and is more likely to create healthy debate.
March 5, 2008 9:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
Pretty good arguments there, quite a remarkable progress from the racist looking statements you were making a week ago.
A few points to make:
1. Of course we will vote for either candidate come November; what do you imagine, voting for anti-abortionist, anti-evolutionist, pro-big business, Bush-loving, torture-fan John McCain?
2. Some of Obama's win might be in states that won't matter in November, but they matter now; they have delegates, they are inhabited by American citizens, they matter
3. Even in states which we will surely lose in November, it is important to conceptually rebuild the party machine, adapt it to the 21st century and the endless possibilities of putting volunteers together and getting an enthusiastic small donors base; and I'm not even getting into talking about possible Congress seats we might squeeze out of impossible places
4. I agree that there's something fishy about caucuses, just like the whole primary system is questionable. But the truth is that the rules were there for both candidates, they both knew what it was needed to win and they both wanted to win. It is absurd to say that Hillary would have rejected any caucus victory, if handed to her.
For the future though, the whole system has to be re-written.
March 5, 2008 12:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
WHY THE CLINTONS WON'T BE RELEASING THEIR TAX RETURNS?...
http://thememlingindex.com/hillary_clinton_net_worth-wealth.html
March 5, 2008 8:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
I want to see Obama start hitting the tax return issue, and more generally the shady sources of the Clintons' money, HARD. It's a win-win for him- an attack mode that actually reinforces his positive message of representing a break from the same old politics.
March 5, 2008 8:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
Jerome speaks to the TPM tribe. Don't worry about taxes, listen to Jerome. She'll give you her tax returns when she's the nominee. Which is probably in the cards at this point. Relax and get ready to win in November.
http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/3/5/71932/67043#commenttop
March 5, 2008 9:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
Jerome is a moron. If Hillary is the nominee and hasn't yet been forced to find an effective way to deal with this issue, she'll be toast.
March 5, 2008 9:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
I know the CW is that the continuation of the primary is bad for the Democrats. And, that may be the case if things turn increasingly negative. But, the flip side to that argument is that citizens in a lot of states that normally sleep through the primary season (b/c things are decided after SC) are becoming invested in this race. Organizations are getting established early, people are registering to vote, and folks are paying attention. We've seen record turnouts on the Democratic side throughout this process. Having two competent (and history-making) potential nominees swing through all these states may be a net positive come November if (and this is a big if) the supporters of the losing candidate aren't irrevocably embittered at the end. So far, the race (by historical standards) has been fairly positive.
March 5, 2008 9:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, I wouldn't say she hurt herself too badly last night. But I'm sure she appreciates their concern.
March 5, 2008 9:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sancho, so why are Republicans voting for Hillary? Because they want her to win? No - because they know she's the easiest candidate to beat in Novemeber.
Every poll shows this as well.
To say Obama probably can't win the GE means that Clinton most DEFINITELY can't win the GE and by a big margin of defeat.
March 5, 2008 9:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
It was Obama who, in Nevada, was urging Republicans to play Dem for a Day and support him.
And it has been repeatedly noted that Republicans are also voting for Obama in open primaries.
So what's your point?
March 5, 2008 9:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
Big difference between the Conservatives that are voting for Senator Obama to PUNISH the GOP and the Republicans who are voting for Senator Clinton weaken the Democrats.
March 5, 2008 12:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
She won the Old Racist vote. Congratz
March 5, 2008 9:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
Obama's fight back
Remind independents about why they hate her...
1. Arrogance. Closed pointless meetings on health care that pissed everyone off and swept Republicans into the White House in 94
2. Entitlement. From the start campaigned as the heir apparent.
3. Disloyalty. Promoting McCain's experience during a primary.
4. Shameless ambition. Tolerated a philadering husband, voted against her own stated interests (and progressive causes) to advance her presidential desires. She will do anything.
5. Bill. More white house interns, more pardons for rich donors, more land deals, more for republicans to hate.
Obama needs to make it personal. Many people hate HRC. He needs to consistently remind them why.
March 5, 2008 9:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
No, if he does, one of the reasons I support his candidacy will be lost. He can beat her on the issues and the question: who can be the best leader? If he can't sell it then he loses, simple as that.
March 5, 2008 9:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
You realize, Steve, the tax return thing is a red (state) herring. Do you really think her tax return is going to keep her from being elected? You think this election is about Hillary's taxes? That's a divide and conquer democrats ploy by Obama.
Today's news: Obama. cannot. win. the. GE.
Why do sites like TPM hate lunch bucket, working class democrats?
Limousine liberals never win in the GE. But, man they sure do lose in style.
Hillary's tax returns? No wonder we lose every four years.
Humphrey-McGovern-Dukakis-Gore (ok, he won)-Kerry-Obama.
This ain't the Dream; it is the Nightmare.
Wake up.
March 5, 2008 9:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
Help me out here. I think the evidence does support your cntention that blue collar Dems support her...but why? I've been trying to figure this one out and can't really figure out why, there's really no reason I can see for it.
March 5, 2008 9:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ignorance-based bigotry.
March 5, 2008 10:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
How is Obama a "limousine liberal"?
He's running the most populist campaign I've even seen.
We finally have a chance to take the Democratic party back... and people are acting like it's Hillary who is anti-establishment?
March 5, 2008 9:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
What an amazing election campaign, and it continues. I'm a pod for Obama and I must concede was a little down about Texas. We have neen winning for a month, and that is way more fun! Then, I did the math. Nothing had changed. Meanwhile, what to do. First, for Oabamaites like me it's time to suck it up. Congratulations Hillaryites. Then (after I pay some bills, time for a little donation.
Meanwhile, how to be positively negative since it looks like Clinton has decided to do it the not nice and dirty way. Here are some approaches that will let Obama do it without bring up the "Do you really want her and the sexual harasser back in the While House" theme?
1. espond to the "Obama will kill your children" red phone ad? Well, Clinton actually did. She voted to go to war without even reading the intelligence report. Talk about being too busy to do the work Madame Senator!!
2. Those tax returns. Hit her again and again and again.
3. The donors list for the library. Hit her again and again and again.
4. Make Mark Penn the public face of the campaign strategists. She talks a goof lkabor game but it all comes down to a union busting goon calling the shots.
5. Go to Upstate New York where I live. After eight years, Senator Clinton has down nothing to turn around the economy here. She blames George Bush. Well, no excuses. Focus on Utica, Buffalo, etc.
On to Pennsylvania. Isn't democracy great!
March 5, 2008 9:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
I totally agree. This has to be taken in the context of her substantial lead even just a week or so back. I would have like to have seen him win Texas last night, but either state was up hill all the way for him.
On a side note, I think it is interesting that he took Bell County, home of the Army's Fort Hood, and by a sizable margin. Apparently he's got some solid support from the troops and those that live and work with them.
March 5, 2008 9:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
(Obama supporter with a few opinions.)
Critics are correct. It isn't enough to win on the technicality of more delegates. Obama has to win the rest of the elections--no fuss, no "I have more delegates". Plain. Simple. Win the rest of the races--even if it is by 0.01%.
NAFTA and the Candadians. This whole thing was not handled well by the Obama campaign. Get better or lose the nomination.
It's 3AM Ad and other symptoms. I remember the ad but the response certainly didn't stay in my head for long. Therefore, it was not a memorable response to a memorable ad. And that translates to a bad response by the Obama campaign. The same thing holds true about the Rezko innuendo, the hidden Muslim terrorist innuendo, etc. All of these require a response that may have to be on-going.
Latina votes for Hillary. This is a continuing problem for the Obama campaign. At this point, it should have been solved at least a bit. It hasn't been solved.
Sex and Race. Is it helpful to ignore these? I don't believe that it is. Address these two things strongly and stop ignoring them. I really do believe that ignoring them makes the issue worse. Your campaign needs to figure this out pronto.
Basically, I have not been impressed in the past couple of weeks with your campaign's ability to handle incoming professionally or to recognize issues that need constant responses (like Rezko, sex, gender, Latina, etc.). You're in the big leagues and your campaign needs to start acting like they know that. It's not being "nice"--it's responding over and over to the same ole things. And you aren't doing that.
If you can't, then you need to negotiate with Hilary for the VP slot and head into the convention with a united ticket. I'm a supporter--heck I even signed a petition urging you to run so I've been around for a while. But enough is enough. Play in the big leagues or negotiate a settlement. You have a bit of time to think about what you will do.
March 5, 2008 10:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
I respectfully disagree.
Obama should run the campaign the way he's been running it. He's the leader. He doesn't need to capitulate or turn into Mr. Negative.
I don't think it will help him.
Look, it's almost 2 months until PA. Two months!
Hillary might have gained a bit of good press, but it's not going to last 2 months. Obama is doing fine, he's in the lead, and he won't give up.
March 5, 2008 10:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
Pardon me, but this is BS. When ANYONE has a 3AM ad which is memorable, then the response has to be made and has to be equally memorable. That didn't happen.
Now, I happen to see the CREATOR as a negative campaigner. The responder is also negative? You see the "nice" response to ignore it? Then, Obama would lose the GE.
And he cannot continue to ignore gender and race. And I don't see how bringing those up is negative.
You apparently don't like ANY criticism of Obama, is that it?
March 5, 2008 11:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
I see that our minds work in much the same way, dear Cube. I definitely agree with you that more forceful responses need to be made on the Rezko, NAFTA memo, Red-phone-3-a.m., etc fronts. Indeed, if I were advising the campaign, I would encourage them to bring these issues up themselves. Especially Rezko. There is no story there, so the sooner that all of the details are aired out in full, the sooner everyone will forget it. The NAFTA memo was a boneheaded, unforced error and I hope that the campaign has learned the lesson about candor. The memo itself was not that damaging, but the fact that it was produced after campaign surrogates denied categorically that any meeting had every taken place made our guy look deceptive.
I will say, however, that winning on the basis of a lead in pledged delegates is not a "technicality" and I doubt that it will be perceived as such in the fall. More to the point, I really cannot forsee a scenario in which Obama arrives at the convention leading in pledged delegates, but the supers decide to throw the contest to Clinton. It would be a public relations disaster (a cabal of white men overturn the "victory" of the first viable black candidate in either party - the fallout would be more toxic than three mile island for at least another two election cycles). Our guy is going to win this nominating contest, but if he is going to win in November he will have done well to have learned the lessons provided in this last week.
March 5, 2008 1:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
My evidence for why Obama would fare better against McCain than Clinton is anecdotal, but nevertheless persuasive to me. I'm a lifelong Democrat who's always voted for the party's nominee. If Clinton wins the nomination, I will abstain from voting for the first time - that's how much I am put off by her scorched earth tactics. Among my family and friends who have identified themselves as Democrats, many have said they will either abstain from voting if Clinton gets the nomination, or consider voting for McCain. None of them has expressed the same ambivalence about Obama. Finally, among the family, friends and acquaintances who have identified themselves as Republicans, none have said they would consider supporting Clinton, while at least three have said they would consider voting for Obama in the general election.
March 5, 2008 10:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's prety clear to me the voters want this to go to the convention before it is settled. I don't know why Obamaites such as Josh Marshall have such a hard time understanding this but the fact is the party is split damn near 50-50 right now.
The idea that losing three of four elections is a plus is idiotic but, as P.T. Barnum once noted, "There is a sucker everywhere." Maybe somnebody will believe it. No rational person could.
The media has ben wrong nearly every step of the way on this election. They were wrong here, too. Now, let's the voters, who have done a very good job so far, continue their task.
March 5, 2008 10:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
Not disappointed in Hillary so much as I am in us. She's fighting the only way she knows how, the way she's been fought against. It's up to us to tell her (and by extension the Repubs) that it doesn't work anymore and that there's a price to pay for trying it. That's the change Obama represents.
If he's wrong, if we really do still respond to negative campaigning and personal attacks, then shame on us. But if so, the last thing we need in the general is another deer in the headlights. She might be the candidate we need and deserve.
March 5, 2008 10:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
Big win for Amy Poehler last night! Looks like she doesn't need to fold up that Hillary imitation just yet.
Anyway, HRC now takes the lead in popular votes, will a John Edwards endorsement in North Carolina help around now? Yes it can.
Anyway, California, NY, NJ, Ohio, Texas, Florida, Michigan, Massachusetts and soon, Pennsylvania. Heck of a lot of electoral votes there too.
March 5, 2008 10:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
CA = Democrat, no matter who
NY = Democrat, no matter who
NJ = Democrat, no matter who
OH = swing, no matter who
FL = swing, no matter who
MI = Democrat, no matter who
MA = Democrat, no matter who
But this is not the General Election, this is the Primary, and the winner has to win the most delegates PERIOD, not just certain states he or she deems appropriate.
March 5, 2008 10:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
Anyway, California, NY, NJ, Ohio, Texas, Florida, Michigan, Massachusetts and soon, Pennsylvania. Heck of a lot of electoral votes there too.
Can somebody please explain to me why winning or not winning a state in a primary is somehow an indication of winning or not winning that state in the general?
It doesn't make any sense.
First of all, obviously, it a PARTY primary. There is another party out there with voters.
Secondly, primary voters are atypical of general election voters. To assume that there are no other voters out there willing to support the party in the general election is just stupid.
Finally, they are all from the SAME party. One candidates voters will not somehow "disappear" should other candidate win.
Tell me why I'm wrong. This whole "I can win Ohio because I won the democratic primary" or, to be fair, "I can win Virginia because I won the democratic primary" is nonsense.
March 5, 2008 10:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
Here's the actual argument. It isn't really about a primary win in Ohio translating into a general win in Ohio. Instead, it's about groups that support a particular candidate.
For example, are the concerns of older, Democratic primary voters similar to the concerns of older, independent GE voters? Compare and contrast with the Democratic candidates. Compare and contrast with the Republican candidates.
Continue through all of the identified groups. Analyze. Make a judgment.
Let's take the African-American voters. These folks are a bedrock of the Democratic Party. Obama carries them by large numbers while Hillary does not. If Hillary is the candidate, will the AAs support her candidacy? That final answer is the judgment call. IMHO, of course the AAs will continue to be the bedrock of the Dems in the GE.
The Hillary versus Obama is really divided between older and younger voters, IMHO. I don't see that divide easily bridged. The numbers aren't there for either one to pull ahead decisively. And that means that other demographics have to be used--and these aren't budging in a definitive way.
It translates to 50/50.
March 5, 2008 11:24 AM | Reply | Permalink