The Expectations Game
You're supposed to use that teeth-grindingly awful cliche on days like today, so I thought I'd give you a whole post with that name.
So here, in no particular order, is today's reading list on expectations for tonight, the setting of expectations for tonight, the spinning of expectations in advance of tonight, and all things expectation-related...
* The Obama campaign puts out a memo saying that Hillary needs a huge win tonight but adds that even a huge win wouldn't make any difference in the long run, anyway.
* Mark Blumenthal says that the polling showing a Hillary win is inconclusive, and rather aptly describes the polls as "blunt instruments."
* Adam Nagourney says that if the Hillary camp wins by less than 10 points and tries to spin it as a victory, things will "get murky."
* Jake Tapper quite rightly wonders why it is that we've all decided that frontrunner Barack Obama, who's outspending Hillary by three-to-one, isn't supposed to win in a big state like Pennsylvania.
* Hillary wonders, or pretends to wonder, why it is that Obama can't "close the deal' with voters.
* Atrios, after remaining scrupulously neutral for this whole primary and heaping much disdain on the whole process itself -- and on the two candidates from time to time -- votes today for Obama, increasing the chance of an Obama victory by one vote.
* And finally, because you all forgot this, I reported a few weeks ago that Obama privately told a group of California donors that a Hillary win of less than 10 points would be a "victory" for him.
"Jake Tapper quite rightly wonders why it is that we've all decided that frontrunner Barack Obama, who's outspending Hillary by three-to-one, isn't supposed to win in a big state like Pennsylvania."
Maybe Jake Tapper can explain why someone with all the advantages of incumbency is fighting for her political life against an unvetted, inexperienced, Louis-Farrakhan loving, antipatriotic empty suit?
April 22, 2008 3:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
No kidding. Hillary has had more advantages than any non-incumbent in US political history.
April 22, 2008 3:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
I EXPECT TO LOSE BIG AND CONTINUE TO LOSE UNTIL I AM ELECTED
Dear Super Delagates
Please do not forget that I not YOU now control the guilt of this nation and as your commander I expect to see my name on the WH china come Nov.
Sincerely
Barry Obama
"Hey mister! You forgot your Change we can belive in!" Screamed the cashier as I drove away with the radio pumping JZ.
April 22, 2008 3:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wow. That was pretty painful.
April 22, 2008 3:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
OMG! It's the David of Willendorf. Or is it the Venus of Davendorf?
April 22, 2008 4:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
LOL, That's Michelangelo's David after a trip to New Orleans.
April 22, 2008 6:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
I would be interested if they would do a poll asking Pennsylvanians how many of them knew anything about Obama before the primary season. Then, ask them how many of them knew anything about Hillary Clinton before the primary season. I'm sure there would be a huge difference in those numbers.
I've used this analogy before: It's like the War of the Root Beers.
Hillary = A&W, a tried and true brand that almost everyone is familiar with.
Obama = Sprecher, which is another very tasty brand, but is only really well-known in the upper Midwest.
Which brand do you think would need to spend more money to get the word out that they're a better root beer? The nationally-known root beer that's bottled by a major soft drink company, or the boutique root beer that offers it's own new take on root beer goodness?
April 22, 2008 3:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sprecher is the shiznit.
A&W sux.
Oh Well.
April 22, 2008 5:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Jake Tapper is the same guy who tried to make Obama sound like a liar after he admitted falling off the wagon...with his smoking.
This is not a serious journalist.
April 22, 2008 3:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
He has pulled quite a bit of those recently, attacking Obama for totally baseless crap.
Tapper, meet Krugman, Krugman, Tapper.
April 22, 2008 3:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Barry did not fall off the wagon. We did bong hits with him after the Springsteen party while Michelle sat in the car honking the horn and screaming "Barry did you remember to pick up that Change We Can Believe In at the waffle stand?"
Sincerely
Mrs. The Boss
April 22, 2008 3:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Isn't there an age and sobriety limit for posting here?
April 22, 2008 4:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
TPM's policy is "Republicans with no life and nothing better to do, please troll here." And has been for years.
April 22, 2008 4:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Still not as bad as Politico.
April 22, 2008 6:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not to mention that (as Jonathan Alter informed us on Abrams) that PA is one of the states with the oldest demographics-HRC constituency). I do recall that HRC was ahead by as much as 20 points a couple weeks ago. Once voters are more familiar with Barack Obama, they shift to his campaign.
April 22, 2008 4:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Jake Tapper is an idiot. No, really. On TV he is worse than he is in writing because he is winging it. It's not whether he leans Clinton or Obama, it's just that he is a very bad journalist. Bottom feeder.
April 22, 2008 6:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Quite rightly?" Are you serious?
April 22, 2008 3:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
You gotta love GS, not only using that turn of phrase, but putting it within the link text so that it's indexed by goog, etc that way.
Oh wait, it must have been the web interns.
The bench at TPM is not deep.
April 22, 2008 3:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, the Quite Rightly highlights do bother me as well. Greg Sargent claims neutrality but continually has pro-Clinton comments or edits like this. It would be a lot simpler if he just came out and stated his bias. Greg could as easily high-lighted a pro-Obama comment.
April 22, 2008 4:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Quite rightly lacking all credibility.
They're just words, though, right?
April 22, 2008 4:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ah..take it easy on Greg. True he was extremely biased in giving credence to fallicies early on from the Clinton campaign, but in the past few weeks he has really tried to stay on the up and up.
April 22, 2008 4:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
HRC by HRC by 5-10, murky
HRC by > 10, good for HRC
It's that simple. Of course, nothing is good enough for HRC to close the pledged delegate gap significantly, but "good for HRC" means "can justify continuing".
April 22, 2008 3:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
errgg html formated my lt sign. Should read:
HRC by lt 5, good for O
HRC by 5-10, murky
HRC by gt 10, good for HRC
April 22, 2008 3:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
If she wins by 20 or more, in my mind it'll be a whole new ballgame. That'll be the only way that I can see her having a real non-destructive path to the nomination at this point.
If Clinton wins by 15 or more, then I believe the Supers will pause to evaluate the political landscape. She'll have 2 weeks to "obliterate" Obama's candidacy. It'll be a rough stretch, but I don't see Obama numbers tanking in NC in that time. This is probably the worst case scenario for the party as a whole as Clinton would be encouraged to blow up Obama in every possible way, and she would probably retain some significant support within the party all the way to the convention.
A Clinton 10 point win will be played up by television media pundits, but will change absolutely nothing in the race. A Clinton 5 point win, and you'll see superdelegates really start pouring towards Obama to begin shutting this thing down by May. And of course an outright Obama win ends things within hours.
April 22, 2008 4:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh you're the one who got that quote about 10 points below her! I wondered where I got that.
I remember. I've been watching the whole charade to see how true it will turn out to be.
April 22, 2008 3:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Jake Tapper quite rightly wonders why it is that we've all decided that frontrunner Barack Obama, who's outspending Hillary by three-to-one, isn't supposed to win in a big state like Pennsylvania.
Demographics. Nobody expected Hillary to win Mississippi, just like nobody expected Obama to win Pennsylvania.
April 22, 2008 3:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you.
April 22, 2008 3:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Demographics, name recognition, and establishment support (i.e. the "machine").
April 22, 2008 3:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
At this point, I have a hard time taking anything Jake says seriously. But did he have amnesia for the 20+ point lead Clinton had just a little while ago?
April 22, 2008 3:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
He is ABC, what do you expect? They lost ALL credibility with me. I was pretty much annoyed with their bias before that little monstrosity they called a debate, but that thing settled the deal.
April 22, 2008 3:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
* Jake Tapper quite rightly wonders why it is that we've all decided that frontrunner Barack Obama, who's outspending Hillary by three-to-one, isn't supposed to win in a big state like Pennsylvania.
Hey there Hillary's Sargent at arms;
Does Hillary need to close the selected delegate, and popular vote count, with a very big win in Pa. or not.
What is your answer?
April 22, 2008 3:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Quite rightly? What bullshit. Tapper is talking like he has Bill Clinton's hand shoved up his ass giving him the ventriloquism treatment, and you are saying "quite rightly"??
Why couldn't any Democrat win Utah in a general election no matter how much money and effort they threw at it? It is a stupid question. Hillary had a huge advantage in name recognition in PA, she has the "demographic advantage" (the state was said to be tailor made for her), and she also has a former president campaigning for her full time, and yes, she has the Party establishment on her side. Enough reasons for you? How about a press that has been running with every bullshit "scandal" they can come up with against Obama because of who he knows or what he said at a fundraiser no matter how true and unoffensive it was? Given all that and the fact that he has probably taken her lead down to single digits, I'd say that is pretty good.
April 22, 2008 3:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
There's only so much you can do with money. There are many voters who are solidly for Clinton/Obama who wouldn't switch just because one candidate runs more ads than the other. It's not like they're trying to persuade them to switch their fabric softeners.
April 22, 2008 3:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Also, and this is entirely anecdotal, but I know some Clinton supporters who admit that her cause is futile but they want to vote for the candidate they like the best. They know their vote isn't going to change things that much (because hype it or not, PA isn't going to change the outcome of this stupid race), but lots of them think they have a once in a lifetime chance to vote for a woman, they like Hillary, and they want to make a personally meaningful vote.
Obama's not just the frontrunner. He's the presumptive nominee. The fact that the media is in thrall to the Clinton drama doesn't change that. But that fact also doesn't make it necessarily any more likely for him to win nominating contests when the demographics favor Hillary big time.
April 22, 2008 4:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's a great perspective.
April 22, 2008 5:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Clinton machine joins with the Rendell/Nutter machines and that's seen as an advantage for Obama?
How?
April 22, 2008 3:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good lord, in addition to Nutter, Rendell and whatever Y'inser is in charge in Pittsburgh, Clinton has the State Dem Chairman on her side.
Obama is basically running against the party in PA.
April 22, 2008 4:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's all about Atrios! He has been remarkably tight-lipped about who he would vote for in the primary. In the end it appears that he was slightly less disdainful of Obama than Clinton. Paul Krugman probably wasn't happy to hear of Duncan's choice....
April 22, 2008 3:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Why can't I just eat my waffle?" he said, when asked a foreign policy question by a reporter at the Glider Diner.
Losing it.
Too much pressure.
April 22, 2008 3:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Why can't I just eat my waffle?" he said, when asked a foreign policy question by a reporter at the Glider Diner.
Losing it.
Oh yeah, he's positively hysterical.
April 22, 2008 3:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Keep talkin' gotalife, keep talkin'
Like I said, I'll be thinking of you when Hillary drops out.
April 22, 2008 3:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Do you like waffles?" He said, when asked if he liked waffles by a reporter from the Waffle Times of Wafflesburgh.
"Yeah we like WAFFLES!"
Buttering it.
Can't take the syrup.
April 22, 2008 3:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Gotalife presents a touching homage to Alice's Restaurant in this short scene, touching on an intensely poignant Pressure Point that harkens to the wildly tessellated Tender Mercies that have brought him so much love from the TPM audience this campaign season. Casual viewers may be tempted to overlook this example due to the terse, staccato dialogue - but long-time viewers will certainly revel in Gotalife's uncanny ability to weave a rich tapestry from only a handful of thread.
Known Troll: +5
Intellectual Dishonesty: +20
Willful Misinterpretation: +15
Bitter Modifier: +25
Waffle House Tip: +20 (New!)
--------------------------------------------
Troll Rating: 85
April 22, 2008 3:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dude, we've needed you. Welcome back.
April 22, 2008 4:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
My apologies, faithful reader. Union rules, unfortunately, prevent me from engaging in Bitter Irony in pointing to a hectic offline life in responding, given the Epic Branding of the performer to whom the review was attached.
They do not, however, preclude me from pointing that out with Mirthful Glee :)
April 22, 2008 4:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
TrollCritic, you've been gone much too long.
You've been gone so long that gotalife is starting to sound like a bizarre version of idiotic. (idiotic, please do not be insulted at the comparison. You continue to shine splendiferously, as always.)
April 22, 2008 4:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
At least he didn't cry when asked a question about his hair doo.
April 22, 2008 4:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Regardless of Greg's supposed position/slant on things...I can see Greg winning a bet within the office over how mad he'll make the Obama supporters by simply adding "quite rightly".
April 22, 2008 3:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
ANd quite rightly so. Jake Tapper is responsible for some of the silliest stuff ABC puts out. He's sort of the poster boy for the crew ABC put up for the debate.
Jake Tapper quite rightly says things the same way that a stopped clock quite rightly tells the time. The work that Election Central does is significantly better than the pablum that Tapper spins out, so why is EC linking to him?
And maybe this is a knee jerk reaction, but the media is execrable these days. Don't link to crap, and don't flatter the crap that is linked.
April 22, 2008 3:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
This made me laugh.
April 22, 2008 3:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Quite right.
April 22, 2008 3:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
"* Jake Tapper quite rightly wonders why it is that we've all decided that frontrunner Barack Obama, who's outspending Hillary by three-to-one, isn't supposed to win in a big state like Pennsylvania."
Well, HumanityCritic wonders, quite rightly - what exactly it says about the wife of a successful two term president who has been in the publics consciousness for more than a quarter century, part of a well oiled political machine who was up around 30 points more than a month ago, who was backed by many of the major political players in Pennnsylvania... How is she letting a 46 year old junior senator from Illinois who has only been in the public eye for 4 years make Penn so competitive?
April 22, 2008 3:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Pennsylvania" - spelling correction.
April 22, 2008 3:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hold the presses! There's one more bit of crucial news. Julie Nixon Eisenhower is an Obama supporter and has already donated the maximum to his campaign. She was also a big supporter of her father, who became the only President ever to have to resign from office, which is perhaps why Fox News found this story sufficiently embarrassing for Obama to merit a spot on its front page.
April 22, 2008 3:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Most reasonable people denounce and reject those 'guilt by association' tactics.
April 22, 2008 3:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Then I'm surprised ABC hasn't done the same.
Perhaps they are busy photoshopping Obama's face on Nixon's body.
April 22, 2008 3:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary was a Goldwater Girl.
Nuff said.
April 22, 2008 4:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary is a McCain Girl.
Nuff said!
April 22, 2008 4:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Does the Nixon guilt-by-association cancel out the Wethermen guilt-by-association?
April 22, 2008 7:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
This Clinton talking point about Obama outspending her is ridiculous!
Why is the fact that he's OUTRAISING her getting lost in the spin?
April 22, 2008 3:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
"She was also a big supporter of her father"
She supported her father's presidency? That's shocking!!!
April 22, 2008 3:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
It truly is.
And yes, the only President ever to resign. To avoid impeachment. So it reflects poorly on Obama because the daughter of the only President to ever resign from office supports him. So what does it say about the other candidate who is married to one of the only Presidents to actually be impeached?
Answer: Neither matters.
April 22, 2008 3:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Jake Tapper quite rightly wonders why it is that we've all decided that frontrunner Barack Obama, who's outspending Hillary by three-to-one, isn't supposed to win in a big state like Pennsylvania."
What does Pennsylvania being "big" have to do with anything? It's not like the reason Obama or Hillary wins or loses a state is that one of them doesn't have enough money to buy ads in large media markets or across a large geographic area. Obama isn't supposed to win Pennsylvania because of demographics. Pennsylvania is 87 percent white and also the third-oldest state in the country. In Ohio, Hillary won senior citizens by 46 percent and non-seniors by 4 percent. Old white Democrats prefer Hillary to Obama and aren't going to change their minds. So what? Most of them will vote for Obama in November anyway.
April 22, 2008 3:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Didn't you get the memo? We're going to decide the race based on total square footage of the states in which primaries were held. Minus the square footage of caucus states. Except Nevada. Geez. Get with the program.
April 22, 2008 3:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ha! I love it...
April 22, 2008 5:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Barack Obama has had three previous opportunities to knock Hillary Clinton out of the race. First, in New Hampshire in early January where all the polls pointed to an Obama win; second, on Super Tuesday in early February where a win in California would have been enough to cripple the Clinton campaign; and then most recently in Ohio and Texas in early March, where a popular vote win in either state would have been enough to effectively knock Clinton out of the race. And then their is Pennsylvania, where it appears that he will fail to knock her out of the race again.
When will he be able to knock her out?
I truly believe that after Hillary Clinton wins Pennsylvania tonight, she will use the above quotes to get the superdelegates and pleaged delegates to back her.
April 22, 2008 3:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's not boxing. Hillary is winning some states because people want to vote for her. But more people want to vote for Obama.
The argument that Obama won, and Hillary lost, but that because Hillary didn't lose by that much she should be declared the winner is absurd.
April 22, 2008 3:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dream on, Hillary. It's not going to happen.
Thank you for not posting poll results here.
April 22, 2008 3:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
For once. Sheesh.
April 22, 2008 3:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, you can think that. But it's wrong. If it's under 10 points, the superdelegates will flock to Obama.
April 22, 2008 3:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Fair enough, I do not see that she has a more effective pitch to make to the superdelegates, so she might as well run with this, tripe though it might be. That said, do you imagine that the Obama folks cannot rebutt this? The argument can be turned inside out like a sock - Clinton has had numerous chances to knock Obama out: first in Iowa, then in Nevada, then on Super Tuesday (when the polls had her far, far ahead of him everywhere but in Illinois just a few weeks before the voting). She managed, however, to blow a mind-boggling war chest and advantage in terms of machine connections and name recognition to lose to a not-even-one-term freshman senator.
The fact that neither has been able completely to eliminate the other shows that they are both good candidates. It is simply nonsense to spin it as if this situation shows that one or the other is a weak candidate.
April 22, 2008 3:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
My god, you people really do live in your own little world, don't you? A world where every hold 'em hand is a pair of aces, where everyone hits the big Lotto jackpot and where it's safe to play in thunderstorms because the lightning only strikes in this one place. Sounds nice, in some ways.
I'm sure the flying pigs in your world make tasty barbeque, but personally, I'd rather live out here in the real world. It kind of sucks sometimes, but here in the real world, we still have a little actual democracy left and our politicians and party hacks know that reversing the outcome of the primary process because they think they know best would be a catastrophe for the party, for the nominee and for the country.
But, hey, buy me a Lotto ticket before you leave. I promise I'll pay you back for it once it hits.
April 22, 2008 4:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, and I especially loved the part where you said that, in addition to the supers flocking to her banner, she'll "get the pledged delegates" to back her. Right. People hand-picked by the Obama campaign based solely upon their fanatical loyalty to him--loyalty that would make the most Obama-infatuated poster here at TPM go "whoa, that's over the top"--are going to see the light, betray their trust and vote for her.
Allrighty, then.
Unless, of course you were talking about her getting her own pledged delegates to vote for her. Given that she failed to timely put up a full slate of delegates in Pennsylvania, I can see why one might be worried.
April 22, 2008 4:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Jake Tapper quite rightly wonders why it is that we've all decided that frontrunner Barack Obama, who's outspending Hillary by three-to-one, isn't supposed to win in a big state like Pennsylvania.
Jake Tapper and the whole ABC News Clown Car are full of crap. Obama won't win in PA because he was never expected to win there. He'll do fine in NC and Oregon, and he'll be the nominee.
April 22, 2008 3:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Reason #1 - Demographics
Reason #2 - Rendell Political Machine backing
Reason #3 - Name Value/Known Entity
Reason #4 - Certain Familial ties to the State
April 22, 2008 3:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/homepage/story/34506.html
29 NC legislators endorse Obama.
April 22, 2008 3:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Phoebe Fay quite rightly wonders why the inevitable candidate with all the name recognition and the huge warchest didn't wrap this whole thing up on Super Tuesday.
Oh right, there's this thing called a campaign. And voters. And demographics. And delegates. And 20+ point deficits to make up for. Or in Hillary's case, giant leads to lose.
Pennsylvania has always been Hillary's state. If she were running a decent campaign, she'd be ahead there by 20 points or more.
Of course, if she'd run a decent campaign she might not be losing by just about unit of measurement we've got.
April 22, 2008 3:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh right, there's this thing called a campaign.
Damn. Reality intrudes, again. Jake apparently has selective amnesia for reality, so quite rightly, nearly every commenter on this story has pointed that out.
April 22, 2008 3:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
CT Voter
Dream on, Hillary. It's not going to happen
Question, what is not going to happen?
If you are trying to say that Obama is going to win Pennsylvania, i don't agree.... no data shows that.
Will he knock her out of the race in north carolina... well, if she can pull off a Indiana win the same day that north carolina votes... i guess he will not.....
superdelegates and pleaged delegates are going to wonder ho wcome he can't finish this and how come he can't win big states....
GO HILLARY
April 22, 2008 3:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
And then they are going to turn right around and wonder how come she could not finish it and how come she could not win critical blue states like MN, WI, OR and WA. Once they are done reviewing those dizzying considerations, it will be interesting to see where they land.
April 22, 2008 4:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm just hoping someone can explain the logic to me in assuming that if Democratic candidate "A" loses to Democratic candidate "B" in a particular state, it means that if "A" is the nominee, he or she will lose to the Republican candidate. Is everyone assuming that all of "B's" Democratic voters will vote Republican? Why?
April 22, 2008 7:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why can't she close the deal? Why can't she win in more states than him? Why can't she raise more money than him? Why can't she win more pledged delegates than him? blah blah blahdy blah.
April 22, 2008 4:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
She's not going to get the superdelegates to suddenly and miraculously back her after tonight. It's not going to be that wide of a margin. Second, she's probably going to get clobbered in North Carolina. In short, for the superdelegates to flock to Hillary, they'd have to disregard a number of factors and piss off a large swath of the American public, all to support a candidate who ran a miserable campaign and has never recovered from Super Tuesday. They're not going to do that, because at heart, they've got their own careers on the line.
The fact that Bill had a very awkward senior moment today isn't going to help, either.
April 22, 2008 4:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Reason #5 - Clinton desperation and the fact she will do or say anything to live and fight another day.
April 22, 2008 3:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
The right wing slime machine and the Clinton campaign (the new Bosom Buddies) have been using this bullshit "Obama can't close the deal" argument for the last few weeks. Why are you picking up their trash and posting it as a piece of journalism?
You have been given more than a few good answers as to why Obama hasn't finished off Hillary, but let me just add....Hillary Rodham Clinton, probably the 3rd most well known political figure in America for the past 15 years vs. Barack Obama, Jr. Sen. from Illinois, who first made national news in 2004....Gee, why can't this "frontrunner" close the deal. Jesus, Greg. Give me a break. What planet are you on?
April 22, 2008 3:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama can win the black vote easily but he can't win the white vote as easy. Clinton on the otherhand can win both. I don't even know what Cabinet position he'd be good at? Honestly.
April 22, 2008 3:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama won the white vote in my lily white county two-to-one over Clinton. The notion that Obama can't win with whites is an absurd argument.
...
Sorry, that was rude of me. I shouldn't assault Hillary supporters with things like facts and reality. I don't want to give you a rash or anything.
April 22, 2008 4:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
And he didn't win the African American vote "easily" -- until late last year, Hillary had a majority of African American support. Then Camp Hillary started doing some disrespectful things that peaked around South Carolina, and her support in the community faded fast.
April 22, 2008 4:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wisconsin Primary: Over 90% white voters. Obama trounced Duck Blind Hillary in that Primary.
April 22, 2008 4:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
O you think so, huh?
Boy are you stupid. If Clinton is the nominee, all this record voter turnout will evaporate like the morning dew.
These are progressives and young voters as well as African Americans, who I don't really think will turnout for Clinton if she is nominated - not in any numbers.
Nope - we go right back to the Southern Strategy strangling the life out of the election if Clinton is nominated, because the only people who still like her are older working class voters who are basically conservative, and a bunch of women.
If you think that is enough to get her elected - then how come it wasn't enough to get Kerry or Gore far enough beyond the breaking points to win out over vote tampering? With enough votes, that gets harder to do.
But let's just go back to doing it the same old 20th century way and lose again.
April 22, 2008 5:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, Tapper is the fountain from which the ABCness flows into the rest of the network. He is one of the major reasons why ABC has joined Politico and Fox in the Axis of Imbecility. All three organizations are grimly committed to the freakshow against all attempts to make journlist cover real stuff instead than made up Dowdified tripe.
But Tapper in particular always has something snide to say about Obama and is always looking for something he can use to bring Obama down off his high horse (as Tapper sees it). Let us not forget that it was ABC that assigned someone to watch every second of Wright's recorded sermons and pull out the worst bits he or she could find so they could be strung together into an tirade that would hurt Obama.
It's not that he's pro-Clinton. He's pretty harsh on her, actually. it's just that a person like Obama offends Tapper to his very core. Tapper's whole career is built on the cynical, hyper-ironic, content-free personality based Beltway journalism spawned by fifteen years of Republican abuse of the press. He is, in short, the kind of guy who is incapable of believing that Obama is what he seems to be, sneers at those who are taken in by him and is determined to expose him for the fraud he must be.
And Obama must be a fraud, because if he isn't that would mean that Jake Tapper is an ugly, small-minded corporate whore, a creature not so much infected with the pervasive cynicism of the Beltway establishment as a creation of it.
Tapper and the rabble at Politico are to Obama as Cici Connally and Kit Seelye were to Gore in 2000.
April 22, 2008 3:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
You should blog this.
Tapper has to believe Obama is a fraud because Tapper, himself, is a fraud.
Analogous to the way that Hillary assumed Obama had attacked her--in her speech in Pittsburgh. So she attacked back, and got booed for it. Hillary assumes Obama is going to attack, because that's what she would do.
Tapper assumes that Obama is a fraud, must be a fraud, because if he's not, it's going to make looking in the mirror and seeing how shallow and petty he (Tapper) is very difficult.
By the way, "Axis of Imbecility" should be trademarked.
April 22, 2008 4:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks, but tradmark it? Perish the thought. On the contrary, I commit it to the public domain and encourage all to spread it as widely as possible. Widespread ridicule is the last desperate hope for salvaging our press.
April 22, 2008 4:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
I've always prided myself on my cynicism and my smart-aleckyness, if not my good English. But to see these ciphers trashing any sliver of idealism in the American voting public (unless it's a blind faith in the efficacy of war) makes me want to just grab them and beat them senseless.
I mean, it may be fun to play the anti-Washington game with the corporate whores in the Republican Party; they're not being paid to serve the people (and they probably serve quality food and drink at their parties). But to come from a privileged background (as I'm sure most mainstream journalists do), and to travel the country trying to understand and explain it, as these arrogant little fucks are paid to do, and not see the want and the hurt that government could do much to alleviate, just enrages me.
It's not cool to play it that way when the quality of millions of peoples' lives is at stake. These courtiers passing themselves off as journalists will be damned by any fair analysis of the end of the American Century.
April 22, 2008 6:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
I've always prided myself on my cynicism and my smart-aleckyness, if not my good English. But to see these ciphers trashing any sliver of idealism in the American voting public (unless it's a blind faith in the efficacy of war) makes me want to just grab them and beat them senseless.
I mean, it may be fun to play the anti-Washington game with the corporate whores in the Republican Party; they're not being paid to serve the people (and they probably serve quality food and drink at their parties). But to come from a privileged background (as I'm sure most mainstream journalists do), and to travel the country trying to understand and explain it, as these arrogant little fucks are paid to do, and not see the want and the hurt that government could do much to alleviate, just enrages me.
It's not cool to play it that way when the quality of millions of peoples' lives is at stake. These courtiers passing themselves off as journalists will be damned by any fair analysis of the end of the American Century.
April 22, 2008 6:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
News flash: Jake Tapper is a douche.
April 22, 2008 4:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yep. That sums it up quite nicely. I could have saved myself a few words if I had your gift for concision.
April 22, 2008 8:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
First of all Sprecher kicks a lot of ass when it comes to rootbeer or cream soda or black bavarian beer. (thank you integrity for the reference.)
Next, the truly amazing thing about these primaries is that we care so much. The coverage plays into our individual views that these primaries are open contests and are all equal -- they aren't. Take a step back and you'd see that Obama has out performed expectations in EVERY state and will again in Pennsylvania. That alone isn't enough as Huckabee probably exceded expectations too. The difference is that Obama's strategy to win more delegates has worked!
It isn't a surprize if Hillary wins tonight; even by 15% -- she started with a lead of 20% to 25%. We should congratulate her for "only" losing 5 to 10 percent of her support?
The only real remaining contest is Indiana. Hillary is the frontrunner there but Obama could over take her.
We know this ends in a month and a half with Obama way ahead in pledged delegates. Enough superdelegates will come forward to make him the nominee and the rest will remain silent for fear of pissing off their base.
So, the candidates spend their money, the press covers the stories, and we read, watch, and follow the events of the day. All so that we can officially call Obama the nominee in June even though it has been pretty much determined since the Potomic primary.
Hey, I'll watch the coverage tonight too. Maybe Hillary wins by 20 or maybe Obama loses by 5 and wouldn't that be interesting? Well, it will and in the end Obama is the nominee.
and I'm fine with that.
April 22, 2008 4:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dorn76... I would think that with Obama raising the amount of money that he has and been spending it in all these states, he could knock her out of the race pretty fast....but he hasn't
hummmm
April 22, 2008 4:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary had all the money and all the institutional support, and yet she is losing.
You can spin all you want, but that is the fact. Superdelegates are not flocking to your banner, the Convention is looming, Obama will be the nominee. If you want to get on board and beat McCain, we will welcome your support.
April 22, 2008 4:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
If Hillary were not Mrs. Clinton, she would:
a) not be a part of this national conversation
b) not enjoy such deference from the MSM
c) not be a Senator from anywhere--let alone NY
d) never have passed the bar in Arkansas
e) still be a Republican go-fer
f) still be a terribly annoying woman
April 22, 2008 4:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
A, B, C and likely F. Who knows about D and E.
April 22, 2008 4:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
greg is a troll, and rightly so
April 22, 2008 4:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Clinton stays in PA and Obama moves on to Indiana.
Should be another great victory speech as Obama stays off message going negative proving his whole message is bs.
He can't seal the deal proving he can go negative like Rove, outspend 5 to 1 and still lose.
Clinton is the best choice this cycle.
April 22, 2008 4:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Weren't you saying 30 points the other day?
And Obama almost always goes to the next state (except in Texas, when the next state was 6 weeks away). He does it everytime. If you want to talk about not conceding defeat and pretending as if elections don't matter, you're pointing at the wrong candidate.
April 22, 2008 4:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, she was outspent a gazillion trillion dollars to 1, and she still won!!!!@#$$#@!%$#^^^!!!
April 22, 2008 4:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Aside from bringing this primary season to merciful and overdue conclusion, I would love for Obama win to night if for no other reason than to see if Clinton finally has to acknowledge one of his wins.
April 22, 2008 4:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'd like to see him win just to see gotnolife's head explode.
(I know he won't win, but a girl likes to dream a little.)
April 22, 2008 4:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
A la Wonkette:
Old people like "experience" and Hillary Clinton. Young people like "change" and Barack Obama. This is all the demographic information you need to predict who will win Pennsylvania.
Simple as that.
April 22, 2008 4:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Please, just let it end. Please. Make the pain stop.
April 22, 2008 4:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have my own theories why Clinton will win PA:
People like to be contrary.
The political machine favors her.
But, really, doesn't it all come down to Demographics?
In any case, it doesn't matter.
Clinton won't win 64% of the rest of the primaries, and Obama will carry PA in the Fall. It is, after all, a Blue State, and McCain is linked to Mr. 28%.
April 22, 2008 4:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary won Pennsylvania... CNN already calling it............
Just JOKING:)
April 22, 2008 4:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Blacks 4 Barack
(A Multi-Racial Org.)
Announces:
The 'WE WILL NOT BE CHEATED'
Phone Campaign To DNC !
Realistically speaking, it is a fact that even if Hillary wins Pennsylvania there is absolutely no way she can get enough delegate votes to defeat Obama and win the Democratic nomination. WE CAN'T LET HAPPEN IN PA.....AS DID IN OHIO !
In Ohio's election, 15 of the polling locations in Cleveland ran short of ballots. It just so happened that all 15 of these locations were in the black community. Once the shortage was 'discovered' (at 7:15 pm....after polling locations had closed) it was ordered by a regional judge to keep polling places open longer....actually until 9pm. Problem was that the workers at the locations had already closed up and gone home.....so the locations were not re-opened. Although there is a supposed investigation taking place, we want everyone to take note that these cheating tactics will not be tolerated ! If ANY cheating occurs in this Pa. election, we must DEMAND that legal actions be taken and the facts (culprits) revealed.
Hillary Clinton's coniving tactics will end up ruining the Democratic Party. Now is the time to let Howard Dean, Donna Brazil, Harold Ickes (both members of the DNC Laws & Bylaws Committee)and the entire DNC know that if Hillary wins through ANY methods deemed trickery (which is the only way she can win the nomination) WE....THE PEOPLE WILL NOT SUPPORT HER IN THE GENERAL ELECTION !
We are asking EVERYONE to call the DNC at 202-863-8000 to let them know 'We Will Not Support A Cheater !
We need 50 thousand Americans of all ages, races and creeds to FLOOD THE PHONES !!! Call Today !!!! 202-863-8000. Say It Loud....WE WILL NOT SUPPORT A CHEATER.....PERIOD!!! Tell everyone you know to make this call. The Time Is NOW....for the Re-Birth of America !!!!
NOTE: The Media refuses to inform America that OBAMA WON TEXAS.....Pitiful !!!!!
Visit: www.Blacks4Barack.org
(A Multi-Racial Organization....Dedicated To Truth !)
April 22, 2008 4:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
I just have to pile on.
"Quite rightly...?" What a load of crap. How could the establishment candidate not win by 20pts in a state that is tailor made for her voting demographic?
April 22, 2008 4:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Clinton campaign has been trying to spin away their earlier confidence and move the goalposts for victory in Pennsylvania. But the bottom line is that if Senator Clinton is going to make meaningful inroads in this race for delegates, she will need a huge margin in Pennsylvania.
Clinton's own supporters have been predicting big wins. Governor Ed Rendell and Congressman Jack Murtha - no strangers to Pennsylvania politics - have both predicted runaway wins for her. [MTP, 4/6/08, MSNBC, 4/1/08]
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/04/22/pennsylvania-expectations_n_98018.html
April 22, 2008 4:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
There's a reason why the PA state motto is:
"Welcome to Pennsylvania! We May Be Old, but We're Still Racist!"
April 22, 2008 4:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
quite rightly wonders
You're just fucking with us now right, Greg?
April 22, 2008 4:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Try to keep up troll critic.
Obama went all out in PA. Running off message, refusing more debates and whining about everything.
He lied in his ads, fliers, and phones to prove he is not "a different kind of politician" and his whole campaign is based on a lie.
He can't win the big States to win the general. Clinton is right and stayed on message proposing solutions for all the problems.
The choice is clear if you want to win the general. Hillary Clinton will win.
April 22, 2008 4:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
You know, there is never anything of substance in any of your posts. Your lack of reasoning and debate skills is really sad, and your limited vocabulary makes it very difficult to take you seriously. Saying the same things over and over isn't helping your candidate and I'm sure most people here don't even read your posts anymore (or do and then roll their eyes, realizing that nothing you have to say is meaningful in any way). You throw wild accusations and falsehoods out there and then call Obama supporters "trolls" (even though Obama supporters far outnumber Hillary supporters here). You and your candidate deserve each other.
April 22, 2008 4:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
It is very entertaining though, I must admit. Much like watching the early auditions of American Idol when they show the worst of the worst.
But more sad.
Pathetic.
April 22, 2008 5:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
I suppose, in a car-wreck-can't-look-away kind of thing. It's so horrible but you can't tear your eyes away. ;)
April 22, 2008 5:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Was Hillary half-assing it? The argument seems to be that "Obama's spending so much money and he can't land a knockout blow - he shouldn't be the nominee." Let's turn that statement around - because Hillary is hemorrhaging money and is completely unable to catch up to his lead in delegates, states or the "popular vote", she should be the nominee? "He's not kicking her ass hard enough" seems like a poor argument against his candidacy.
April 22, 2008 4:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Just one question gotalife:
Who are you talking to?
April 22, 2008 4:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
I made the mistake of talking to the troll weeks back, and got back a "I'm exercising my first amendment rights and not trying to convert anyone to Hillary" reply. Not sure what benefit one derives by doing so, other than a little catharsis, I suppose; I just ignore troll posts (but yet, still loved Troll Critic 3000's smackdowns, they were still funny even if I didn't read the posts the inspired them).
"If the tree falls in the forest" indeed...
April 22, 2008 5:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
ROFLMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
April 22, 2008 5:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Gotalife takes charge in a desperate Race Against the Clock as he tries to unravel the clues that will unlock the Magical Thinking Doorway and free the gentle trolls of Bliss Ninny Valley from the evil clutches of Dr. Delegates once and for all. It's a fiercely intimate performance, daring audience and critics alike to find fault, but in the face of a market that's been less than receptive to Fantastic Voyages this campaign season, will it pack enough punch to Seal the Deal with casual viewers?
Known Troll: +5
Contrarian Troll Modifier: +3
Intellectual Dishonesty: +20
Willful Misinterpretation: +5
Strawman/FUD Modifier: +5
Seeking Refuge in Scorn: +65 (A Personal Best!)
Bitter Modifier: +45 (Marked Improvement!)
Sparkling Cognitive Dissonance: +40
Chicken Little Modifier: +15
Bliss Ninny Modifier: +15
Beat the Clock Modifier: +80 (New!)
Magical Thinking Modifier: +40
--------------------------------------------
Troll Rating: 338
April 22, 2008 5:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Welcome back!!!
Now all we need is Idiotic, and Life Is Complete.
April 22, 2008 5:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
How do we know that idiotic and TrollCritic aren't the same person?
April 22, 2008 6:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
You just blew my mind.
April 22, 2008 7:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
We have a winner!
April 22, 2008 5:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Genius. As usual.
April 22, 2008 6:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh so happy to see you back!
April 22, 2008 6:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Quite rightly"? (*sigh*)
We could just as easily ask how it is that such an unlikely candidate as Obama has run so successfully against the presumptive establishment candidate.
April 22, 2008 5:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
"quite rightfully"
Just when I was actually enjoying this post.
"quite rightfully"
Says who? You? The Clinton campaign? TPM as a whole?
LOL. Jeez.
April 22, 2008 5:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Reading Greg sargent is an extremely interesting study in journalistic subjectivity. i have no doubt that he thinks he approaches his craft with an appropriate journalistic objectivity and a lot of the time he carries it off pretty convincingly. I don't think he realizes what he's doing when he runs with Clinton spin -- I think he believes he's doing legitimate news stories. I don't think he sees it as biased when he channels Wolfson's implausible explanations or repeatedly rushes to press with the Clinton campaign's take on the scandal of the day. I mean, I think he thinks he's just delivering the news. I'm glad, however, that I'm not relying mainly on his reporting to try to get a picture of the race or I'd be so drunk on Hillary kool ade that I might be tempted to waste my vote on her
April 22, 2008 5:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary just said she "needs two wins" in PA and IN to stay in, continuing a theme she's been hitting since Texas and Ohio: "If I squeak by in states I was heavily favored in until recently, I have my mandate".
But is Indiana solidly in her column? Has she opened the door a tiny crack?
April 22, 2008 5:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
I miss idiotic.
No way Hillary wins NC.
Indiana is close to a toss up; her demographic but he is in the neighboring state so you get positive media over flow (like she gets around New York state.)
I love that everyone seems to agree that the result tonight will be somewhere between a 25 point Hillary win and a 5 point Obama win.
In other words, no one knows.
as they say in baseball; that is why we play them....
April 22, 2008 5:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Latest polls in Indiana showing Obama leading and I expect he will keep it.
What happened to her "inevitable" candidacy anyway ?
My prediction: the media is going to get sick of covering the race between Obama and Clinton and will want to move on to McCain and Obama. Watch them move in for the kill on Clinton in the next two weeks - with ammo about her annihilating Iran and Bill's accusations yesterday that Obama had somehow made him make the racist comments in SC.
I am in the media and I know exactly how these guys operate.
April 22, 2008 5:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Guys, about the "quite rightly," it's obvious Donovan was in high rotation on Greg's Ipod when he wrote this article. So what he should really be taken to the woodshed for are his playlists.
He certainly can see the complete illogic of Jake Tapper's argument; not to mention its implication that Hillary should be able to win NC next week if she's so viable that the Super's should overturn the popular vote and pledged delegate leads.
April 22, 2008 5:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Donovan? Not Supertramp?
April 22, 2008 6:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Mellow Yellow"
April 22, 2008 6:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Clinton better win by 20 pts to make up for those huge(in fact very tiny) wins in Texas and Ohio. I mean as far as I know,...we're still counting delegates. She might have tried the electabilty card in the last few weeks,...but amongst democrats, that technique only created a deeper riff. It was a good primer for Obama when repugs start grasping for straws. If Obama comes within a few pts in PA it should be painfully clear who will get the Dem. nomination.
April 22, 2008 6:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Quite rightly? Only an idiot doesn't understand that different demographics produce different results.
April 22, 2008 6:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama's not supposed to win in PA for two reasons. First, Hillary had a huge head start (more than 20 points ahead in the polls when the PA campaign began). Second, the enormous amount of local and national coverage in PA offsets the impact of Obama's large media buys.
With Hillary's early dominant lead in the polls, if she doesn't win by 20 or more, then she lost a lot of ground where she needed to gain to have any hope of overcoming Obama's lead in delegates or popular votes (essentially insurmountable).
Hillary has name recognition, but in every state where there's been a campaign, win or lose, Hillary ends up with less votes than where she would have been without a campaign (hence the ridiculousness of her claiming that she won Michigan and Florida).
April 22, 2008 6:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
And now, a song by Elton John...
---------------------------------
Goodbye Hillary
Wished I never played for you at all
But you and Bill donated to my charities
and so you had me by the balls...
Well, those around you crawled
and said that going negative would work.
Penn whispered in your brain
He dragged out the inevitable,
And charged you millions all the same.
And it seems to me you ran your campaign
Like an old man passing wind
Cackling hard at others expense
when the stench set in
And I would have liked to have know you
Somewhere back around '92
But your ethics died out long before
The voters ever knew.
Losing ten states straights was tough
Gee, your campaign sure got played!
FoxNews made you a superstar
And George S. drank your lemonade
All the times you lied
Oh how the press allowed you
All the papers had to say
Was "well, okay... yeah, sure...
she misremembered again today."
Goodbye Hillary
From the creepy Brit who played your show
Who sees you now as nothing more than a hollow pantsuit
Two months wasted, and Democratic money blown.
April 22, 2008 7:58 PM | Reply | Permalink