Both Camps Scramble To Roll Out Post-Pennsylvania Superdel Support
In the wake of Hillary's Pennsylvania victory, both campaigns are working feverishly to project renewed momentum heading into the next contests by rolling out new super-delegate support.
• The Obama campaign announced this morning the endorsement of Oklahoma Gov. Brad Henry, whose state voted for Hillary Clinton on Super Tuesday.
• Camp Hillary just announced the backing of super-del and Blue Dog dem John Tanner, a Congressman from Tennessee.
• The Obama campaign also just announced the support of Ed Turlington, the former national general chairman of John Edwards' campaign and an important North Carolina Dem activist. While Turlington is not a superdelegate, he could presumably bring quite a bit of organizational infrastructure over to Obama in North Carolina.
Eric, there are three Supers in the NC haul: Mel Watt, David Price, and GK Butterfield.
April 23, 2008 2:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Definitely. So Barack has a 4 to 1 advantage in SD rollouts today.
Three U.S. Congressmen = 3 more SDs.
April 23, 2008 2:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Then HRC is 7 supers shy of keeping pace with the necessary spread today. Keep eating up the remaining delegate real estate Obama!
April 23, 2008 2:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
(Cough) Sure can trust TPM for accurate information (cough, cough)
You're saying Turlington was HIRED by the Obama campaign?
And phrasing it like he's some kind of fancy delegate who chose Obama over HRC?
April 23, 2008 2:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am given to understand that those three had already committed to Obama, so they are not new superdelegate acquisitions.
April 23, 2008 2:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
How can superdels, who should be interested in PARTY and winning the WH, go with Clinton? The party has already lost the southern male vote long ago, and if the will of the people are overturned, the disaffected African-American vote will follow.
April 23, 2008 2:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Two more taken off the field. Hillary needs 2/3rds of the super delegates, and every Obama announcement that isn't balanced by two SDs for Hillary means that Hillary moves father and farther away from the nomination.
April 23, 2008 2:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama has crazy institutional support in North Carolina. He needs to let the machine there do their business without him. Hillary will hop back and forth between NC and IN, trying to keep the number down in NC and eek out a win in IN. Obama should spend the majority of his time in Indiana doing last minute organization and many small town gatherings. Give Indiana the Iowa treatment. He needs to do well in Indiana, whereas it's almost a foregone conclusion that he'll win handily in NC. Hillary will once again spend money she doesn't in an effort to keep the number down in NC. Leaves Obama an opening to make a late push in IN.
April 23, 2008 2:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
49 Other Edwards Supporters Throw Support to Barack Obama. Don't know if they are all SDs.
http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/zachedwards/gGCVsd
April 23, 2008 2:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
These three would be Super Delgates (making it four SDs today):
David Price, U.S. Congressman (4th Dist) Mel Watt, U.S. Congressman (12th Dist) G.K. Butterfield, U.S. Congressman (1st Dist)
April 23, 2008 2:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
DemConWatch is already counting these. I suspect those were the three congressmen who actually endorsed Obama at the beginning of the month, back when we heard rumors of "the entire NC delegation goes Obama."
April 23, 2008 2:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
The supers like that gov. that go against their voters is ridiculous.
The Dems have a silly process and should use the gop winner take all.
April 23, 2008 2:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
i thought you were on the side that says Supers should choose who ever they want to choose.
April 23, 2008 2:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
I would rather see the popular vote win not the supers deciding the winner.
You know, like a democracy.
McGovern's loss started this crap and it is ridiculous.
April 23, 2008 2:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama is winning the popular vote
April 23, 2008 2:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
He is not.
Count Florida and Michigan and she is crushing him.
Get real.
April 23, 2008 2:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
MI and FL don't count, and even if they did by May 6th she will be behind once again.
April 23, 2008 2:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
get real. fl and mi don't count? according to the dnc, right. but those millions of voters just don't DISAPPEAR. does hope and change only count when it's convenient for barack obama? why isn't he pushing everyday to get those votes counted, just like senator clinton has been doing? because then he falls a wee bit behind, eh?
she's ahead in the popular vote, and everyone knows it. you can't exclude millions on account of some stupid technicality.
April 23, 2008 3:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
okee,
Of course MI and FL count; they just don't count for the Primary process. Every party has a way to choose their nominee and this time around MI and FL are out of the games for reasons well known to all.
Too bad the MI and FL representatives didn't follow the rules that would have allowed the votes of their constituency to count...
April 23, 2008 3:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dude (or Dudette): Count Michigan? Fine. Then the uncommitted go to Obama. We wouldn't want to "disenfranchise" them. Well, maybe Hillary would. The pathetic nature of her campaign is really pukeworthy. I want to see you all here the day she finally gets dragged out the door.
April 23, 2008 4:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama wasn't even on the ballot in MI. Caucus states aren't counted in the total vote metric.
Get real. What a BS metric.
April 23, 2008 2:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Exactly. Getalife, subscribing fully to the spin of the "nothing we can't discount" Clinton campaign, forgets that caucus results also need to be translated into votes -- especially if the Clinton campaign is now going to spin the results of the Michigan and Florida non-primaries as if they were bona fide. So, for record, here's what caucus results actually mean:
"There have been 13 caucus states so far in the Primary and Clinton has only won one of them. Obama handily defeated her in Iowa, Alaska, Idaho, Kansas, Minnesota, Colorado, North Dakota, Nebraska, Washington, Maine, Hawaii and Wyoming. Clinton won Nevada.
The current tally of county delegates (that are available) for these states, has Obama at 366,764 and Clinton at 156,563. When we multiply these numbers by 10, it puts Obama at 3,667,640 and Clinton at 1,565,630, a margin of roughly 2 million votes.
When this math is applied to the final tally, it puts Obama ahead of Clinton by 2,300,000 votes, a far cry from the 800,000 most DNC insiders think is the estimate.
Obviously, there is no way to truly estimate how many people these county and city delegates represent. But the fact remains, these caucus tallies are not accurate depictions of the popular vote, nor are they representative of any singular person or voter. Multiplying these figures by 10 gives a far more telling story towards the truth. And when the Clinton Campaign makes blind claims that they may somehow trump Obama on the popular vote, they may not clearly realize how far behind they actually are in the count."
If anyone would like to read more, here's the link: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/shawn-christensen/dont-be-fooled-obama-is-a_b_96118.html
April 23, 2008 2:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
You are hijacking this thread, Mr or Mrs Gotalife. I've seen you do this before. It's a specialty of yours.
April 23, 2008 2:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Count Florida and Michigan and she is crushing him."
Uh-huh. She is crushing him. And if you look at the electoral vote and discount the so-called "pledged" delegates, Obama can just drop out because he doesn't have a chance. Unfortunately for Hillary, that's not how things work, but in Hillary's imaginary world, she is crushing him.
April 23, 2008 2:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
If you count FL obama is still winning and he is still winning if you count MI if you give him credit for the 'undeclared' vote, which according to Sen Clinton was a vote for Obama. The only way to put her in the lead is to count the votes that wwere for her in MI without counting the ones that were against her. If you count votes that way she wins everywhere.
April 23, 2008 3:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
The ONLY way Hillary is ahead with the popular vote is if you count votes from Florida and Michigan (which didn't even have another name on the ballet - just uncommited) and DON'T count the following caucas states:
Alaska, Colorado, Idaho, Kansas, Minnesota, North Dakota, Iowa, Nevada, Nebraska, Washington, Maine, and Wyoming.
Do the voters of these states suddenly not count? Popular vote isn't much of a metric if it leaves out 12 states!
April 23, 2008 3:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
My brother and I play Super Smash Brothers all the time. We are extremely competitive about it. We start every session with 3 or 4 games to warm up, then we reset it and start keeping score. For those first few games, we're not putting forth our full effort because we know they don't count. But every once in a while my brother will get a big enough lead that he argues against resetting the scores. It's annoying, but understandable. It's hard to give up on scores that look so favorable.
Anyway, anytime I hear about MI and FL, it inevitably reminds me of my Super Smash Bros sessions with my brother.
I realize a lot of people there wasted time trying to vote, and now their voices won't be heard. But I think if anyone *really* cared about the voters, they'd have raised a stink before the contests.
April 23, 2008 4:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Count Florida and Michigan and she is crushing him.
"Crushing" him? BWAHAHAHAHAHA!
In the best possible scenario for Clinton (count FL and MI, don't count the uncommitteds for Obama in MI, don't count the wins in IA, ME, NV, WA), Clinton is up by -- wait for it -- 0.4%. That's right. Four tenths of one percent.
Counting IA, ME, NV and WA, and continuing to count the rogue primaries in FL and MI, and counting none of the "uncommitted" in MI for Clinton, she's up by 0.04%. That's right. One twenty-fifth of one percent.
This, in getalife's parallel universe, is "crushing" Clinton.
In any other scenario (at least on RCP), Obama is ahead anywhere between 0.7% and 2.1%, depending on the scenario chosen. That INCLUDES scenarios that count Florida. Numbers current as of today, 2008-04-23. It's all at http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/democratic_vote_count.html.
getalife, you're a real piece of work. You're not starting to feel desperate, are you?
April 23, 2008 11:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
and counting none of the "uncommitted" in MI for Clinton, she's up by 0.04%
Should read:
"and counting none of the 'uncommitted' in MI for Obama..."
April 25, 2008 3:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
Obama has the totally misnamed "popular" vote already. He has the pledged delegates.
How many times - o never mind; like I said, when Barack Obama cleans his shoe, pops his collar and takes the oath, you'll be right here arguing that Clinton had the "popular" vote.
nevermind.
April 23, 2008 2:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Exactly. Doesn't that directly contradict the Clinton talking points? Where's your, ahem, talking points memo, troll?
April 23, 2008 2:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
I disagree. I think in the future the process should resemble that of Michigan - just put Hillary's name on the ballot with a "Yes" or "No" box. Oh goodness, looky, Hillary won!
April 23, 2008 2:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
You owe me a new keyboard for that one! It was priceless - you are absolutely hilarious!
April 23, 2008 2:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Moi, aussi!!
April 23, 2008 2:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Now there's a flip-flop for you.
April 23, 2008 2:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
But... but... weren't you saying that the rules allow supers to make up their own minds? Are you telling me you didn't pitch a little hissy fit when John Lewis jumped off your girl's sinking ship?
Wouldn't this be yet another midstream rule change?
Whiner.
April 23, 2008 2:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
OK, Eric, better late than never, but tell me why Obama's delegate haul wasn't posted until there was a Hillary delegate to report on as well? Really, I have not bought into other posters' complaints about yours and Greg's reporting bias but I really feel like I have to complain here...and as integrity reported, there are 3 supers in the NC announcement. What gives?
April 23, 2008 2:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
If I was a super delegate, I'd sure be concerned with throwing my support behind a candidate who can only win 8% of the African American vote. Any Democrat looking for a victory in November is going to need AA support. Hillary really needs to prove that she can close the deal with black voters in North Carolina.
April 23, 2008 2:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey now that isnt allowed, only Hillary is allowed to move the goal post.
April 23, 2008 2:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Add to that those white Obama supporters who really won't go to Hillary. Some who say they won't of course will in the end, but others really mean what they say, so when you add those percentages, you're heading up to pretty some hefty figures. Then you've also got to tally in those great white guys in PA and OH (for whom the Democratic party, along with the Clinton campaign, just can't jump through enough hoops), who will vote for a white woman over a black guy, but will also dump the woman for a white guy, especially once McCain completes his swing toward the center, which has only just started.
April 23, 2008 3:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dude, we're only allowed to worry about that kind of stuff when it applies to White women, White men, (mostly) White Catholics and White working-class folks. Come on, get with the program.
April 23, 2008 3:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'd also be concerned about a candidate (Hillary) who does best when party activists are not invited to openly state who they support (caucuses); who does best in closed primaries where one has to change registration to Dem in order to vote and independents are not welcome; or who does best in modified primaries that were held early in the campaign or where the Dem voters are less educated and over 65.
The boomers, of which Hillary is one, have little to brag about over their use of power. In fact, the vast majority should slink away from the seats of power with heads bowed in shame. And please do not give me the crap that the "best" president the Dems could cough up after DECADES ended up getting himself impeached because he lied and also managed to mangle things enough that the Dems lost Congress after damned decades in power. Our standard is certainly set low enough. Sad.
Now, Obama has won this nomination and the MSM and other folks who want to deny that can continue on their merry little way until June when the super delegates better END this little charade and vote for Obama. Enough already.
April 23, 2008 3:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary only got one super after winning PA? That's fewer than I would have expected...
April 23, 2008 2:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
It does not make any sense.
The Gov. of OK rewarded Obama for losing by 10 points.
They should reward the winner.
It is sad and silly.
April 23, 2008 2:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Boohoo, whiner!
April 23, 2008 2:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
I miss your Scalia pic.
April 23, 2008 8:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
A 50/50 split is FANTASTIC for Obama. And I doubt there are many Hillary fans holding out - she's needed them to shape the narrative for quite some time now.
I imagine a clear majority of undecided supers just want to hedge against an Obama implosion, such as getting killed in PA (didn't happen) or IN, or losing states he should win (NC and OR). If Obama loses by 15+ in IN, or loses by ANY margin in either NC or OR, then I will worry about the supers flipping. Not one minute sooner.
April 23, 2008 2:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
But it isn't a 50-50 split. It's a 75-25 split because he picked up the following three in the North Carolina haul:
David Price, U.S. Congressman (4th Dist) Mel Watt, U.S. Congressman (12th Dist) G.K. Butterfield, U.S. Congressman (1st Dist)
April 23, 2008 2:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
You left out the Governor of Oklahoma. That makes it four for Obama versus one for Clinton.
April 23, 2008 2:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
OOPS! Make that an 80-20 split because that's four Obama SDs to one Hillary SD.
April 23, 2008 2:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Can you guys get the Obama good news correct, for once?
April 23, 2008 2:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
In fairness to Eric, the Watt/Price/Butterfield SD announcements were already out there, and had been factored into the existing tally of SDs. The three were included in today's announcement, presumably, to show the breadth of support for Barack within the former NC Edwards apparatus.
April 23, 2008 2:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, you're right - on further investigation, 3 of the 49 NC Delegation that endorsed today (I think they are all former Edwards people) are indeed Superdelegates but had already come out for Obama, so Obama and Clinton have each picked up one super. However, my original complaint stands - Gov. Henry came out for Obama this morning but there was no post here on the announcement until Hillary's super came out this afternoon. Is there a fear that good news from the Obama camp without corresponding good news from the Clinton camp will somehow show "bias"? I just don't get it.
I am thrilled with the announcement of the NC Edwards people. I don't think there's any way he can endorse Clinton now (although I'm not sure his endorsement means too much at this point, anyway). It is indeed good news for Obama!
April 23, 2008 2:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm glad we're on the same side.
I love how you hold people's feet to the fire.
:)
April 23, 2008 2:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Aw, thanks, Tena. You're pretty good yourself!
I was at a board meeting the other day and one of the attendees actually asked me if I liked to argue - my husband (who's also on the board) just looked at them as if to say, "duh ... you don't know her very well, do you?" LOL! I was BORN to argue, I think! I was raised in a family of very, very conservative, well, bigots, so I honed my skills early in life! ;)
April 23, 2008 2:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Haven't you noticed from Eric's little snarky "caveats" that he leans towards Clinton?
April 23, 2008 2:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
You know, I've been reading this blog (and commenting off and on) for a while now, and I've tried to keep an open mind, but I'm beginning to see why people frequently complain. And looky here - Greg's new post is about ... ready ... a Hillary conference call!! Who'da thunk it????
April 23, 2008 2:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
I do see iffy headlines and comments here and there; however, I don't quite see them as biased against or in favor of a particular candidate.
I find them to be random goof offs.
April 23, 2008 3:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Breaking News:
New Book Deal for Senator Clinton:
Title: HOW I LEARNED TO STOP WORRYING AND LOVE THE BOMB.
By: DR. HILLARY STRANGELOVE CLINTON
April 23, 2008 2:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Excellent, Liam - very funny! LOL! :)
April 23, 2008 2:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Iran ready to discuss nuclear dispute-Ahmadinejad."
Yup.
Don't mess with Clinton.
April 23, 2008 2:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
You know, just the fact that you approve the idea of obliterating Iran invalidates anything else you might say. Ever.
April 23, 2008 3:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
And then after the radioactive clouds part, out of the mine-shafts will trudge a new nation of Hill-people, unconcerned about arithemetic; scientifically chosen from select counties in southeastern Ohio and southwestern Pennsylvania, ready on day one to build a better world.
April 23, 2008 2:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
O my god - stop - I had food in my mouth when I read that -
I've cracker crumbs everywhere now! I need a new screen and it's your fault!
April 23, 2008 2:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey, remember that 1984 commercial with Hillary on that giant screen (the parody of the Apple commercial)? Here it is - wow, how prescient this person was, huh??
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6h3G-lMZxjo
April 23, 2008 2:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good one. I laughed.
April 23, 2008 3:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary only got one super after winning PA? That's fewer than I would have expected..
Why? Her favorability numbers recently hit a seven-year low, and are near an all-time low.
She claims to have raised a lot of cash today, but she's still far behind Obama in fundraising.
Her earlier wins haven't swayed superdelegates. She's barely above where she was on Super Tuesday, up by one or two, but Obama is up by 80. Don't forget she started with almost 100 superdelegates before the primaries even started, based solely on her deep party connections. She's been gradually losing that battle ever since.
She's behind in the popular vote, unless she counts Michigan where Obama wasn't even on the ballot, and Florida, and doesn't count some of the other states.
And she pissed off a lot of people in the party by endorsing McCain over Obama, a move so sleazy you can't even find a Republican, not even a Republican advised by Rove, stooping to such a level. Among other things she's done, but that was a big one, and superdelegates are unlikely to be eager to reward such behavior.
So what argument do you think would sway the superdelegates?
April 23, 2008 2:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
She (and Bill) have also alienated almost every voting demographic except for the over-60 female crowd - young voters, caucus voters, small state voters, African American voters, and others that I can's remember right now. She's bleeding support in every single group, including white blue-collar voters, and he's gaining support in every demographic. I truly believe that if she somehow pulls out the nomination, a good chunk of the AA vote is going to stay home. And you can be damned sure that all those new, young voters who are so excited and inspired by Obama will NOT show up at the polls in November. These factors have to weigh on the supers' minds.
I don't believe McAuliffe about the $10M - notice (as someone on the previous thread pointed out) that he said they are "on target" to raise $10M - not that they have raised that amount. That leaves a ton of wiggle room, and of course we won't know for sure until the FEC filing is done next month. It will be interesting to see how Obama does last night and today - his contributor total is up to about 1.4 million people today, and if I remember correctly yesterday it was somewhere around 1.25M.
April 23, 2008 2:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ummm.....doesn't matter? She has zero percent chance of winning, period:
http://www.thepersonalispolitical.com/2008/04/pennsylvania-results.html
April 23, 2008 2:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
The tide has turned.
Stop whining.
April 23, 2008 2:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm guessing you understand tidal mechanics about as well as you understand math.
April 23, 2008 2:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Shocking concession from Gotalife!
At least until yesterday, the tide was with Obama!
We accept your apology for months of abuse!
April 23, 2008 2:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah. The tide HAS turned. It turned on Super Tuesday, when Hillary lost the nomination. Now we're just waiting for her to get real and drop out.
April 23, 2008 2:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
PS: I think it's cute the way Hillary says something, and you just immediately program it into your tiny little brain. You love your Hillary, don't you? That's adorable.
April 23, 2008 2:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
I really dont see this race going pass May 6th.
In Indiana BO isnt starting from 20pts+ down. the latest poll has him up by 5.
http://www.pollster.com/08-IN-Dem-Pres-Primary.php (scroll down)
The Guam caucuses on May 3rd will probably be a win for him
He probably will win NC handly.
The 10 mil she got since last night is all going toward bills. She wont have hardly any money left to buy a significant amount of TV ads or put in place a good ground game in IN or anywhere else for that matter.
May 6th is D-day. If BO cant close it out then, then "Houston, we have a problem."
April 23, 2008 3:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
I disagree with this. I expect, as you just said, that Sen Obama will win the next three races (Guam, Indiana and North Carolina) including a big win in NC. That said, I expect that Sen Clinton will announce in her evening speech on May 6th that she is in it through to the convention. If worries like money or lack of a realistic chance at victory mattered, she would be out already. From the fact that she is not out already, therefore, we can infer that she does not care about considerations like money or a realistic hope of victory. For better or worse, I expect that the race will go on until the end of the first week of June. By then enough superdelegates will have announced their support of Obama that he will agree to seat MI and FL as they stand, thus depriving her of her last professed justification for sustaining her candidacy. I am not sure whether she will suspend her campaign or not at that point, but it will not matter because Obama and McCain will be going at it so hard by that point that everyone will lose interest in her just as they have lost interest in Ron Paul (even though he has not suspended his campaign).
April 23, 2008 3:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yep, I agree with Greg. She will move those goalposts again - she's not getting out of this until the supers put a stop to it. She says now that she must win Indiana, but she's said this so many times that it's not credible anymore. We're going at least through June and perhaps beyond if the supers don't commit.
April 23, 2008 3:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
In that case, I am not sure that we really do agree, dear Ms Soprano. I am not convinced that even once the supers swing to Obama and put him way over the 2025 mark that she will suspend her campaign. I could very easily see her defying an explicit Obama delegate majority and taking this all the way to the convention. That is to say, there is a very plausible case to be made for the view that she is not really trying to win at this point - just to see to it that he loses. If that is the case, then it is not clear to me that she would have an incentive to withdraw even after he reaches 2025. I am not presently predicting that she will do that, but I am saying that I would not be at all surprised if she were to do so.
April 23, 2008 3:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dear Greg, I sincerely hope you are wrong about this. And if you are right about her intentions (and I believe that, at this point, she does want him to lose, if out of spite alone), I very much hope that the "elders" of the party (including Gore, Carter, Dean and Pelosi) will sit her down in the event that the superdelegates put this thing to bed and lay the law down. It is our party, their party, not her blind ambition or her bitterness, and somebody has got to get this through to her.
April 23, 2008 3:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dear Carol,
I share your hope that my forebodings are wrong. I do not like the idea any more than you do. That said, the upside of this is that I fully expect that if the scenario which I just painted comes to pass, I expect that it will not be too much to our detriment. That is, I expect that once the supers come out for Obama and put him over the top, even if she does not suspend her campaign, the spotlight will move off of her on onto John McCain, so that her persistence will make little difference.
April 23, 2008 3:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
she will take this to the floor on a minority report (?) mostly because she can and she knows that the party is deathly afraid of the damage she can wreak.
I hope not, but there is prescedent... They took it to impeachment despite the cost.
Feh
April 23, 2008 4:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
gotalife, if you're running a sociological experiment, I'd love to see your final report.
April 23, 2008 3:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
HRC AND LANNY DAVIS insanity spin. OK, will someone let Lanny Davis and the Clinton camp in on the news that leading big in Massachusetts may be bad for her? Since the GOP went racist in the southern strategy, they have won 7 of 10 elections. At best Mass predicts nothing.
YEAR MASS WINNER/SPREAD NOTES NATIONAL RESULT for D's
1968 Humphrey by 31% D LOSS
1972 McGovern 10% D LOSS
1976 Carter by 16% D WIN
1980 Reagan by 0.2% Anderson took 15% D LOSS
1984 Reagan by 22% D LOSS
1988 Dukakis by 8% D LOSS
1992 Clinton BUT Bush/Perot totaled 52% WIN w plurality
1996 Clinton BUT Dole/Perot 38% D WIN
2000 Gore by 27 D LOSS
2004 Kerry by 25% D LOSS
Bottom line, winning Massachusetts, as much fondness as I have for the area, should make any Democratic candidate nervous as hell.
April 23, 2008 3:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Looking at the Democratic primary winners in MA:
1968 McCarthy
1972 McGovern
1976 Jackson
1980 Kennedy
1984 Hart
1988 Dukakis
1992 Tsongas
1996 Clinton
2000 Gore
2004 Kerry
So, the only winner of the MA Democratic primary to have actually won the general was Bill, running as the incumbent.
On the other hand, IN EVERY GENERAL ELECTION SINCE '68, OTHER THAN THE TWO TIME REAGAN WON, THE DEMOCRATIC NOMINEE HAS TAKEN MA!!!!!!
April 23, 2008 4:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ahhh yes the "tide has turned." This is as irrefutable as the fact that Hillary dodged sniper fire in Tuzla. Hillary is our Huckabee. Nothing more. Nothing less.
April 23, 2008 3:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Can't we just put Mass. in the Dem column and move on? To throw out Mass, NY and CA as evidence of Hillary's ability to win in "Big States" (Mass is 6th smallest state, but whose counting?) is just silliness.
Does anyone think Obama could lose to McCain in NY, CA or Mass. Anyone? Besides gotalife, I mean.
April 23, 2008 3:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
if you count Michigan, which you shouldn't, you need to give all of the uncommitted to Obama (the anti-Hillary vote) and he is in front.
but then you disenfranchise all of the caucus states so you really need to weigh the causus states by expected turnout which gives Obama a huge lead in popular vote too.
And as I write this I realize how stupid the popular vote argument is. This is a race for delegates. The superdelegates realize that Clinton is at the advantage now because she can keep being completely negative while Obama needs to hold steady and not splinter the party.
Obama already won; we are just going through the motions now.
April 23, 2008 3:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Like most of the HRC campaign's arguments for why she's entitled to the nomination, it is nonsensical. Nor does it make sense that she should be given delegates for the uncontested primaries in MI or FLA after she agreed they wouldn't be seated. Nor does it make sense that the rules should be changed ex post facto to give the nomination to the candidate who won the most votes, thereby disregarding all the caucus states. If we play by the rules, Hillary has already lost. So she's trying to invent new ones.
April 23, 2008 3:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Someone better tell the Intrade bettors the 'tide has turned.' That woman's "big win" has moved the needle on Obama's odds from 81.5 yesterday to -- wait for it -- 81.4!!!
April 23, 2008 4:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Spin spin spin spin. Next Obama will be saying he won yesterday.
April 23, 2008 4:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama didn't win yesterday, he won (the nomination) over a month ago.
April 23, 2008 4:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Important legislation in the Senate today: The Fair Pay Act. Showing once again that Dems are the party of the working man and woman (something we always seem to need to reinforce for them). And the co-sponsers are Obama and Clinton. So, white working women, come November, please remember that little fact.
Why women? Because of the woman behind this case having gone all the way to the Supreme Court: Lilly Ledbetter, where she lost. Hence the legislation to address the issue. Clinton and Obama will be back to vote to try and break the REPUB filibuster of the Bill. McCain? Anyway, here's what the NY Times editorial says:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/23/opinion/23wed2.html?th&emc=th
April 23, 2008 4:36 PM | Reply | Permalink