I'm Confused

I don't understand this Clinton campaign memo at all. Key excerpt:

The Obama campaign and its allies are outspending us two to one in paid media and have sent more staff into the March 4 states. In fact, when all is totaled, Senator Obama and his allies have outspent Senator Clinton by a margin of $18.4 million to $9.2 million on advertising in the four states that are voting next Tuesday.

Senator Obama has campaigned hard in these states. He has spent time meeting editorial boards, courting endorsers, holding rallies, and - of course - making speeches.

If he cannot win all of these states with all this effort, there's a problem.

So if the candidate who's leading in delegates, national polls, fundraising, and states won can't sweep the March 4 primaries, then Clinton is the real winner? Maybe they should just go back to arguing that Texas doesn't count.

Comments

He has spent time meeting editorial boards, courting endorsers, holding rallies, and - of course - making speeches.

The nerve!

Posted by right | February 29, 2008 12:19 PM

Me fail campaigning? Unpossible!

Posted by norbizness | February 29, 2008 12:20 PM

Hillary Clinton: the slacker candidate.

Posted by Jeff | February 29, 2008 12:21 PM

The next line is even better. It states that not only does he have to win all the states, but they have to be decisive victories. Decisive meaning by 1% more than whatever his margin of victory really is.

Basically all that memo is is an admission they can't do fundraising as well as Obama.

Posted by John | February 29, 2008 12:23 PM

Hillary cannot fail. She can only be failed.

Posted by southpaw | February 29, 2008 12:25 PM

She's way up in RI and has been holding the lead, and no one's been talking about it much. I think her RI victory is going to play a big role if she loses the other 3.

Posted by SP | February 29, 2008 12:26 PM

The next memo: "It's not a real win unless Obama wins with the help of this idiot lardass Penn."

Posted by Jon H | February 29, 2008 12:26 PM

That's just pathetic.

I can see the spin at the convention: "Barack Obama campaigned hard in all fifty states, and several territories as well. But in at least ten of these contests, he still lost the primary election!

"Barack Obama: If he can't win primaries, how can he win in November?"

At what point exactly does this election start counting? I'm beginning to think that *after* the general election, it's still not going to be clear Obama is winning.

Posted by Ted | February 29, 2008 12:28 PM

Oh my god! Stop the presses! The Clinton campaign is looking for ways to spin the results of the upcoming primaries! This must surely prove that HRC is either pathetic or insane or evil. Or, most likely, all three.

Seriously. Campaigns always do this. I guess you find it really satisfying to talk about this sort of thing if you really, really hate the Clintons but really this is dull, run of the mill stuff.

Posted by Rob Mac | February 29, 2008 12:30 PM

If he cannot win all of these states with all this effort, there's a problem.

I love that sort of passive formulation. I mean teh obvious question is "what exactly would that problem be?" Moreover, what does the Clinton campaign suggest as the solution to this "problem?" I really don't mind Clinton so much. Honestly, I would still be happy to vote for her if she won the nomination but this sort of things makes me laugh out loud at the ridiculous tone of desperation her campaign has taken. Its just undignified.

Posted by brent | February 29, 2008 12:30 PM

Apparently she's threatening to sue in Texas to ensure that its caucus literally doesn't count. If all else fails, maybe she can find 5 justices of the Supreme Court to install her as the Democratic nominee.

Posted by Ron | February 29, 2008 12:31 PM

She was outspent 5-1 in Wisconsin paid advertising, a state she might have been able to win if she had spending parity. But that is actually her fault--one must imagine that sometime in early Feb, she said "Patti--where are placing the ads Wisconsin?" and was told, "Sorry Hillary, I spent too much money in Iowa. We won't have ads." And it's probably a kind of feminist tic to put a woman who had never run a national campaign in charge of one. Barack certainly hasn't made comparable mistakes.

Posted by TACreader | February 29, 2008 12:32 PM

"I think her RI victory is going to play a big role if she loses the other 3."

ha ha
I imagine RI would be featured prominently in the press release that precedes the announcement of her dropping out of the race.

Posted by Christopher Colaninno | February 29, 2008 12:33 PM

How many times do you have to jump the shark before you're declared hors concours at future shark-jumping competitions?

Posted by Steve LaBonne | February 29, 2008 12:33 PM

rhode island counts double!

Posted by neilrlca | February 29, 2008 12:34 PM

You and your Obama-acolyte chorus must be really bored today. Is this the best you can find with which to attack Clinton?

Maybe you should simply block quote Chris Matthews, Tucker Carlson and David Shuster. That will save you research time, and you can spend the open hours feeling superior. It's what you and yours do best.

Posted by squalo | February 29, 2008 12:34 PM

You and your Obama-acolyte chorus must be really bored today. Is this the best you can find with which to attack Clinton?

Maybe you should simply block quote Chris Matthews, Tucker Carlson and David Shuster. That will save you research time, and you can spend the open hours feeling superior. It's what you and yours do best.

Posted by squalo | February 29, 2008 12:34 PM

So, in summary:

1) Obama has more support and resources than we do
2) Obama has been working harder than us
3) Therefore, we win no matter what happens Tuesday, and we deserve to win

Jesus.

Posted by Jake | February 29, 2008 12:35 PM

This is really bad news. It is the first real indication that they intend to soldier on past March 4 no matter what happens (unless Obama wins all four states by double digits, which won't happen). Previously, their spin could be interpreted as attempts to influence voters and donors prior to March 4. This, clearly, isn't that, as they're already prespinning a bad night.

It really would be bad for the party if Obama is forced to endure three months of McCain and Clinton making the exact same attacks on his fitness to be president. Seriously, Gore, Edwards, Biden and everyone else need to step in and end this on March 6 unless Clinton wins both Texas and Ohio.

Posted by pjs | February 29, 2008 12:35 PM

You and your Obama-acolyte chorus must be really bored today. Is this the best you can find with which to attack Clinton?

Maybe you should simply block quote Chris Matthews, Tucker Carlson and David Shuster. That will save you research time, and you can spend the open hours feeling superior. It's what you and yours do best.

Posted by squalo | February 29, 2008 12:36 PM

Rob Mac wrote: "Seriously. Campaigns always do this."

No, some campaigns stop running and spinning and spinning ever more fatuously when the only chances of victory are some mathematical miracle.

Other campaigns, like HRC's stay in and seem determined to hand the Republicans ever more hystrionic "Even Hillary said so" bullshit to throw at the nominee.

Posted by riffle | February 29, 2008 12:36 PM

Seriously. Campaigns always do this. I guess you find it really satisfying to talk about this sort of thing if you really, really hate the Clintons but really this is dull, run of the mill stuff.

You may be right on that Rob Mac. I will take your word for it but the joke is not that the campaign is spinning, its that the spin is so transparently bad. Its in the vein of all the "states that Hillary doesn't win don't count" type spin which is not really helpful to her in any way. It actually just makes her look petty.

I am, of course, not a highly paid spin meister but I would honestly be ashamed to have played this all as badly as the Clinton campaign has consistently done for the last month. I realize that there is not much that can be done with an 11 primary losing streak but doing nothing at all would have to be better than this type of crap.

Posted by brent | February 29, 2008 12:40 PM

Oh my god! Stop the presses! The Clinton campaign is looking for ways to spin the results of the upcoming primaries! This must surely prove that HRC is either pathetic or insane or evil. Or, most likely, all three.

Rob Mac, we understand campaigns spin. What's curious is that the Clinton campaign seems to be so BAD at it.

Posted by Jake | February 29, 2008 12:41 PM

Matt, your blog is starting to look like there is some kind of personal struggle between you and Clinton. This is a new tone for you.

What happened? Were you about to get a date at a cocktail party when Clinton sauntered by and said something that made you look stupid? Did she step on your cat once?

Anyway... I stand in awe of the tremendous effort it must take to dedicate yourself so thoroughly to this thing.

http://swanpoliticsblog.blogspot.com/

Posted by Swan | February 29, 2008 12:50 PM

I stand in awe of the tremendous effort it must take to dedicate yourself so thoroughly to this thing.

I see someone finds it difficult to mock the unending stream of idiocy, poor taste, and malfeasance coming from the HRC campaign.

Posted by calling all toasters | February 29, 2008 12:58 PM

Uh no - it means if he can't even win a big state with DEMOCRATS, it's a real GE problem. She still leads him among registered Democrats (not R's who cross over on the same day) and actually among Moderates.

Posted by J Baker | February 29, 2008 1:01 PM

I'm going to miss the Clinton campaign's daily faux pas.

(Looking forward to Obama's victory party will make up for it).

It had looked like Clinton need to win the "firewall" states Texas, Ohio and Pennsylvania all big, 60-40 margins to stay in the race.

Now it's looking like they'll stay in even when they don't meet these expectations. Is this what "experienced" people do?

Posted by Peter K. | February 29, 2008 1:01 PM

Seriously. This is some bad spin. They should be touting their ability to spend spend spend in the big states OH and TX after they raised $34 million in February. They should be talking about how though the races are in tight in TX and OH they see signs they can pull ahead and net delegates in each state's primary. But setting the bar so low (if we win RI it proves that Obama will lose) they make a mockery of themselves.

It makes no sense. They're on autopilot. The expectations game is over. Getting the media to declare Hillary "in the race" after she barely loses the delegate count on Tuesday (by losing TX primary, TX caucuses, VT primary) won't do anything for her. She will be called on to quit by some very big wigs.

Posted by Byron | February 29, 2008 1:01 PM

To be fair, what else can she really say when she is in danger of losing states she identified as her firewall? It could have been worded better but saying, "Yes, Obama is doing well, but that is due to his money advantage, and that doesn't necessarily indicate that he is the better candidate" isn't a bad argument (at least under the circumstances).

Posted by MS | February 29, 2008 1:02 PM

Anyway... I stand in awe of the tremendous effort it must take to dedicate yourself so thoroughly to this thing.

Almost as much effort as you put into blogwhoring, Swan.

Posted by Glenn | February 29, 2008 1:03 PM

Were you about to get a date at a cocktail party when Clinton sauntered by and said something that made you look stupid?

Swan, I think you're confusing Matt with Nicholas Lovelady, and Hillary Clinton with Barack Obama. Otherwise, that did happen.

Posted by washerdreyer | February 29, 2008 1:03 PM

From a Salon article yesterday (or today):

Obama's winning streak left Clinton aides floating a line of spin that has flown about as well as the Hindenburg: "Well, of course he won there -- he tried to."

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2008/02/29/obama_texas/

Posted by evie | February 29, 2008 1:05 PM

Apparently the new line I'm hearing from Clinton-backers is that unless Barack Obama wins the nomination with a majority of registered Democrats, he is not legitimate.

Feh.

I need some time to come up with another version of this to show why my candidate, John Edwards, has also already won among some particular exclusively legitimate group.

Posted by El Cid | February 29, 2008 1:05 PM

Try "white men in Iowa," El Cid.

I just got that one on Ezra Klein's blog. Because states have the right to schedule their primaries whenever they want to-- but not to choose who should vote in those primaries.

Posted by Persia | February 29, 2008 1:08 PM

I think the logic is that if Obama can't win among Democrats, he will have a harder time against McCain. The latest NPR poll has 20% of Democrats bolting to the McCain bandwagon if Obama is the nominee. He's not doing as well as she is with Hispanics, who have a favorable opinion of McCain due to his immigration stance. It will turn to the great fight for Independents.

Posted by w2 | February 29, 2008 1:11 PM

El Cid wrote: "Apparently the new line I'm hearing from Clinton-backers is that unless Barack Obama wins the nomination with a majority of registered Democrats, he is not legitimate."

Yeah I've seen that too. Relying on exit poll results and not the actual ballot box vote is the path to victory I suppose.

I guess Hillary Clinton is now running for President of the Registered Democrats in a Minority of States of America.

Posted by riffle | February 29, 2008 1:14 PM

Some above have said something along the lines of "well, what else could they say?"

How about-Nothing. This is a campaign memo sent to the press designed to push an idea. Wouldn't it be better to say nothing than something that only draws ridicule? Talk about something else, like the fundraising, any endorsements, how everybody's still fighting hard, or whatever standard stuff goes into these memos. Better to have boring spin than comical spin.

Posted by Chris | February 29, 2008 1:15 PM

Snark fails me. Her campaign is reaching Bush-like self-parody proportions. Impossible to satirize at this point.

Posted by jim | February 29, 2008 1:15 PM

Its clear that Barry doesn't play fair. I suggest jumping up and down, tantrum style and maybe even a petulant frenzy.

Posted by An Outhouse | February 29, 2008 1:18 PM

obama campaign response:

"Though we fought hard for every state, Senator Clinton is right - the fact that the American People allowed us to outspend her 2 to 1, yet we only out-won her 13-2[?], shows a clear failure on our part."

Posted by becker | February 29, 2008 1:25 PM

it's clear as day that they are talking about November.

Posted by John | February 29, 2008 1:26 PM

w2,

Of course all those polls also show Obama beating McCain by larger margins than Clinton.

I think general election polls this far out are silly but the Clinton camp can't have it both ways, if they want to use those polls in their arguments they have to use them in total.

Posted by eric k | February 29, 2008 1:26 PM

rhode island counts double!

No disrespect to Rhode Islanders, but couldn't you fit a hundred Rhode Islands inside one Texas?

The Clinton campaing reminds me of that Monty Python and the Holy Grail bit with the black knight. "Merely a flesh wound!"

Posted by Peter K. | February 29, 2008 1:28 PM

"The latest NPR poll has 20% of Democrats bolting to the McCain bandwagon if Obama is the nominee. He's not doing as well as she is with Hispanics, who have a favorable opinion of McCain due to his immigration stance."

Re: Latinos. Obama has statistically significant margins in CO, NV, and NM. Clinton loses CO and NV big and wins NM by about as much as Obama.

Re: Dems voting Republican. On the other hand, how many Republicans say they will vote Dem for Obama vs. Hillary? If this is a concern, please explain how he outperforms her in national polls by 5 points, and in every swing state I've seen except for OH.

Posted by John M. | February 29, 2008 1:28 PM

it's clear as day that they are talking about November.

But I think you are confused because you WANT it to be about the dirty questionable undemocratic selfish Clinton tactics.

Shame on you, Barack Obama supporter.

:-)

Posted by John | February 29, 2008 1:28 PM

rhode island counts double!

No disrespect to Rhode Islanders, but couldn't you fit a hundred Rhode Islands inside one Texas?

The Clinton campaign reminds me of that Monty Python and the Holy Grail bit with the black knight. "Merely a flesh wound!"

Posted by Peter K. | February 29, 2008 1:28 PM

What happened? Were you about to get a date at a cocktail party when Clinton sauntered by and said something that made you look stupid? Did she step on your cat once?

This type of insane pettiness has been the hallmark of the Clinton campaign ever since it began to lose. Don't blame the rest of us if it reminds us of a three year old whining after he was prevented from playing with the steak knives.

The one bright side to this whole disaster is that if it takes down Mark Penn and the whole team of idiots Senator Clinton has surrounded herself with, it will be easier for her to win re-election as senator from New York. She couldn't win dogcatcher with that bunch drinking her blood. Time to flush.
.

Posted by sunsin | February 29, 2008 1:30 PM

"The latest NPR poll has 20% of Democrats bolting to the McCain bandwagon if Obama is the nominee. He's not doing as well as she is with Hispanics, who have a favorable opinion of McCain due to his immigration stance."

Re: Latinos. Obama has statistically significant margins in CO, NV, and NM. Clinton loses CO and NV big and wins NM by about as much as Obama. Both have crushing margins in CA and are unlikely to win TX or AZ. Please explain why I should care if we give up a couple of points among older Latino voters in exchange for high popularity among independents and energized black and youth voter turnout.

Re: Dems voting Republican. On the other hand, how many Republicans say they will vote Dem for Obama vs. Hillary? If this is a concern, please explain how he outperforms her in national polls by 5 points, and in every swing state I've seen except for OH.

Posted by John M. | February 29, 2008 1:30 PM

I think that memo epitomizes a line I heard in a movie once...

'Desperation is a stinky cologne.'

Posted by Benniefly2 | February 29, 2008 1:30 PM

If they would have just left it at the money advantage, I see how they could spin this better. They could make the point that against such huge financial odds, the Clinton campaign is outperforming and with a huge financial advantage, Obama cannot put them away.

However, where it goes farsical is where they include everything else. The meeting editorial boards, courting endorsers, holding rallies, and making speeches are all part of what makes a campaign a campaign. And those have little to do with finances (which really dictate presence on the airwaves) and more to do with organizing and running a good campaign.

So it basically boils down to the idea that if Obama cannot beat Clinton decisively in all primaries, despite their own admission that they are running an incompetent campaign, then they deserve the nomination. Or something like that. There is the essence of a point in there, but what comes out more strongly is the obvious chutzpah of it.

Additionally, it does something subtley that I find a tad troubling, it disavows the Clinton campaign of any agency. It casts them as just passive actors in this campaign experience, almost victims even of all whole set of cirmcumstances cast against them by outside forces. I find that mentality troubling from a feminist perspective and particularly troubling coming from someone that wants to lead the nation. Do we want a leader who is an actor or someone that is acted upon and by their own admission lacks substantive power to accomplish for themselves? What stops the Clinton campaign from meeting editorial boards, courting endorsers, holding rallies, and making speeches? Absolutely nothing.

Furthermore, along these lines, it completely discounts the actual campaigning that Clinton has been waging in the last few weeks. She has gone strongly and assertively negative against Obama in last few weeks, including attacks against his record and television advertisements implying that he cannot keep your family safe (BTW - with the "Night Shift" ad and now this "3AM" ad, is Clinton trying to let us know that she doesn't sleep any more? How late does she stay up?). The fact is, she is hitting Obama harder than ever right at this time and now they are suggesting that since that appears not to be working completely (polls indicate that Obama will likely win Texas by a 5%+ margin and Clinton will win Ohio by a 5%- margin) that they are again going to change the goal posts?

If she does not make up significant ground in pledged delegates come Tuesday night and stays in the race to Pennsylvania, I just then have to ask what is her real agenda?

Posted by Bubba | February 29, 2008 1:39 PM

El Cid: the folks at talkleft.com have been pushing the "majority of registered Democrats" line for a month now. They were crestfallen when Wisconsin showed Obama winning a majority of even those.

Posted by phil | February 29, 2008 2:00 PM

Her goal is to not appear to be a loser to uncommitted superdelegates.

Moreover, if she challenges the legality of the Texas caucus (on whatever mystical grounds her lawyers conjure), sues to get Michigan and Florida delegates seated as-is, and cajoles, bullies, or buys enough Super-delegates, she might be able to pull ahead of Obama and get the nomination.

Posted by Dread | February 29, 2008 2:02 PM

This is using a backhoe to lower the bar.

Posted by Njorl | February 29, 2008 2:11 PM

It is the first real indication that they intend to soldier on past March 4 no matter what happens

You got it. And she's got a good story, too. She's ahead in overall Democrat voters.

Here's a question: How commanding will Obama's lead be among registered Democrats on March 4th?

He may actually lose them. At best he'll win them in a very close number.

Either case gives Clinton the ability to move ahead.

Posted by cal | February 29, 2008 2:12 PM

I think MS and Bubba are right about leaving it at the money argument. It's not necessarily the best argument to say that you were out spent, but you can at least talk about where you are putting campaign resources or discuss how this kind of money might not be available in the general election. The rest of the memo strays into self parody, however.

About the Texas system, I'm sure the point of contention on March 4 will be the fact that the precinct convention/caucus begins at 7:15. BUT... The polls for the primary close at 7 CT. If you are in line to vote for the primary before the polls close, you can still vote in the primary. The caucus cannot begin until everyone in line has voted. So, the caucus portion of this process will most likely not begin at 7:15. Nor are they allowed to shut the doors, so to speak, until everyone in line has voted in the primary. I'm expecting mass confusion at that juncture. Furthermore, most polling places are pretty small. Mine is a church. I'm not entirely sure where they will put everyone.

Posted by LL | February 29, 2008 2:23 PM

Here's a question: How commanding will Obama's lead be among registered Democrats on March 4th?

He may actually lose them. At best he'll win them in a very close number.

Either case gives Clinton the ability to move ahead.

Your perspective discounts the fact that Obama is currently ahead in pledged delegates by about 150. Looking at the current polls, he is going to win VT probably by 70/30. She will win RI 60/40. He will win TX 55/45. And she will win Ohio 55/45. Without even having to do the math and taking into account TX's caucus and delegate apportionment rules, it is likely that Obama could take 60-65% of all TX delegates. He is likely going to increase his lead after March 4th. So what is Clinton's endgame then?

The only way Clinton can make a case is if she brings the pledged delegate number down to something manageable, like 40. And then she can try to make the case that the FL and MI delegates should be seated to take her over the top. No Automatic Delegates will allow for her to win by reversing the pledged delegate result. That would be suicide for the party and particularly dumb, considering the "Automatic Delegates" all control the party apparatus that includes the credentials committee.

So I repeat, the only way Clinton can win is if she can get the pledged delegate count down below the margin that would give her a lead over Obama if FL is seated and maybe MI too (the case for MI is really bad because Obama was not on the ballot). And that will not happen on Tuesday because it seems clear that Obama will either maintain his current lead or expand it. There just are not enough votes out there for Clinton to pull this off.

Posted by Bubba | February 29, 2008 2:33 PM

Aren't primary votes still secret? How fucking crazy is it the HRC campaign wants to use exit polls to deny people their votes.

Posted by Persia | February 29, 2008 2:33 PM

Either case gives Clinton the ability to move ahead.

No, it doesn't. She built up the firewall concept, she rested the stake of her campaign on it; Bill and Chelsea and her top surrogates and aides reinforced it, and it was the entire pretense on which she claimed that 11 consecutive losses didn't matter.

No one is going to buy it. Your argument's absurd. Most superdelegates aren't going to countenance continuing this farce after March 4th if she loses the contests she established as must-win. And the party leaders (Gore, Pelosi, and Clyburn first and foremost) will step in and start to push more support towards Obama at that point.

Posted by jbryan | February 29, 2008 2:37 PM

"The Clinton campaing reminds me of that Monty Python and the Holy Grail bit with the black knight. "Merely a flesh wound!""

We're way past that. We're now into "I'll bite your legs off, you yellow bastard" territory.

Posted by brewmn | February 29, 2008 2:37 PM

If Obama cannot prove the theory of Cold Fusion by next Tuesday, clearly there's a problem.

Posted by Gregor | February 29, 2008 2:41 PM

Without even having to do the math and taking into account TX's caucus and delegate apportionment rules, it is likely that Obama could take 60-65% of all TX delegates. He is likely going to increase his lead after March 4th. So what is Clinton's endgame then?

That's also without taking into account that a few days after March 4th, Obama will win a blowout in the Wyoming caucus, and a few days after THAT he'll win in a blowout in the Mississippi primary. Those two post-March 4th wins will give him (assuming he wins Texas and Vermont) 28 states to Clinton's 13, and it'll add to his already strong pledged delegate lead further.

There's no path to victory here any further.

Posted by jbryan | February 29, 2008 2:47 PM

I can't believe people are still discussing the math on the race for Pledged Delegates. That probabilities of that race being over skyrocketed with the results from Chesapeake Tuesday. With the Wisconsin/Hawaii results, the door slammed shut, on Clinton.

It's funny to me that bloggers like Ambinder did no posts on this until yesterday. Actually, that's been pretty typical in the political blogosphere.

Which is funny, really, because the political bloggers in this way paid nearly as little attention to the math of this race as the MSM, and most certainly missed the inflection point that was reached on Chesapeake Tuesday.

Posted by Gregor | February 29, 2008 2:55 PM

And she's got a good story, too. She's ahead in overall Democrat voters.

And this is based on what, exit polls? We know how accurate those have turned out to be.

Posted by Ban Johnson | February 29, 2008 2:57 PM

There's no path to victory here any further. Posted by jbryan | February 29, 2008 2:47 PM

I have to concur. The so-called Automatic Delegates will not overturn the pledged delegate count. They could conceivable rig the game by seating the FL and MI delegates. However it appears increasingly likely that even that result would not give Clinton a pledged delegate lead over Obama. So what then?

It has been clear since Day One that the Clinton campaign is poor at planning. It is clear to me that they are not looking ahead to the future at all and trying to understand completely what it would take to put them over the top, which is the vast majority of remaining uncommitted Automatic Delegates reversing the nomination to her favor by overturning the Obama lead in elected pledged delegates. By my quick math, if the 150 pledged delegate lead holds for Obama until the convention, which is not unlikely considering that Clinton could likely win PA, but Obama can win everything else, like OR, MS, WY. Clinton would need to win almost 71% of the remaining Automatic Delegates to put her over the top. it's madness.

Posted by Bubba | February 29, 2008 3:09 PM

I am so tired of this "Hillary has won more democrats than Obama and so she is the REAL democratic nominee" line. It assumes that there are a huge number independents and republicans who voted for Obama in the primary that will then vote for McCain in November WHILE AT THE SAME TIME the theory completely dismisses the amount of Obama voters who would cross over to McCain (or stay home) in November if Clinton is the nominee. You can't have it both ways -- you can't beat me over the head with McCainiacs for Obama who'll vote for McCain in the fall and then plug your ears and hum when I point out Obamamaniacs for no one but Obama who'll either stay home or vote McCain if Obama doesn't make it. Is there really a serious argument that there are more of the first group than the second?

Besides just talking about numbers, it really smacks of cliqishness to discount crossovers. Obviously Hillary's supporters want Hillary to win, but if you are a hardcore Dem, wouldn't you want the party to grow even if your candidate is not the nominee? It is strange to hear democrats complain about independents and republicans voting in "their" primary -- to win in November, democrats are going to have to grow new democrats AND convince some Bush voters to now vote D.

Posted by Blue Moon | February 29, 2008 3:15 PM

Oh my god! Stop the presses! The Clinton campaign is looking for ways to spin the results of the upcoming primaries! This must surely prove that HRC is either pathetic or insane or evil. Or, most likely, all three.

Well, I'm no campaign expert, but it seems to me that starting off a press release listing all of the things that your opponent is doing better than you is probably not a good idea.

This is like a team going into the NBA Finals and saying "They have better fan support, a higher payroll, better shooters, better defenders, and better coaches, so if we win one game out of five, then we're really the champions."

Posted by Seitz | February 29, 2008 3:17 PM

HRC should gracefully concede and then run for president of Saturday Night Live.

Posted by Woody Bombay | February 29, 2008 3:20 PM

Your perspective discounts the fact that Obama is currently ahead in pledged delegates by about 150.

Delegates don't matter. If the Dems think they have a better shot with Hillary, they can put Hillary forward using superdelegates. So she doesn't have to worry about delegates. She only needs a credible reason to stay in.

And if Obama can't close the sale with Democrats as a group, or it's a close call, then she's got a reason to stay in.

She built up the firewall concept, she rested the stake of her campaign on it

Unless everyone is very much mistaken, she has already signaled a change in the "firewall" concept. She's going to say that she didn't realize how influential independents and Republicans are, and go forward.

I don't know what's going to happen. Obama may win the nomination without winning Democrats.

But the longer Hillary stays in, the more people are going to notice that he's not won them yet.

Posted by Cal | February 29, 2008 4:00 PM

Delegates don't matter. If the Dems think they have a better shot with Hillary, they can put Hillary forward using superdelegates.

Are they likely to think they can win with millions of pissed-off Obama supporters going to McCain or Nader? Because that's what's going to happen if they overturn a 100-200 delegate lead.

That being said--of course they won't. Red state Dems fear losing their seats if Hillary tops the ticket and very few people believe she is more likely to beat McCain.

Posted by calling all toasters | February 29, 2008 4:14 PM

How dare she, that evil woman! I knew it all along, she's perverse, pathetic, stupid, we can't stand her! Right Andrew? Tell me I'm right.

Posted by Israel | February 29, 2008 4:29 PM

There is no such thing anymore as "winning with Democrats." Party affiliation has crashed over the last three decades. The number of Independent voters now stands as a functional Third party. A party that is now nearly as large as the Republican Party.

It's fitting that the Clinton Campaign would try to spin such an antiquated idea, therefore, that "they are beating Obama with Democrats." No data exists on such on a such an assertion, because, the electorate is now so mercurial that any such data would be ephemeral, at best.

We've reached the point in American politics where you've got a hard core Right of self-identfied Conservatives--who, I might add, are often antagonistic towards the GOP. Then you've got a similar hard core on the Left--also antagonistic towards the Democrats. And then you have this vast middle, most of whom identify as Independents.

I would say anyone who thinks along these old, antiquated lines now is probably at least 60 years old. For example, I find it amusing to read how so many young voters who were certain they identified as Republicans, as they voted for George Bush in their first two elections--now, suddenly, don't identify with either the GOP, or the DEMS. Thus, we see how the trend towards the unidentified continues to expand.

Posted by Gregor | February 29, 2008 4:51 PM

I don't know what's going to happen. Obama may win the nomination without winning Democrats.

But the longer Hillary stays in, the more people are going to notice that he's not won them yet.

This assertion has been repeated endlessly, that Clinton is winning Democrats. Show me authoritative proof of this. Winning closed primaries in certain states - rustbelt, Appalachia, NY media market -- won't be proof that she's winning Democrats overall.

What is the other proof? Exit polls? She's been losing states by huge margins recently -- it's not really even mathematically possible she's been winning Democrats in VA, WI, MD, etc... Again, how is she winning democrats overall? And do caucuses not count?

Please, real proof, not more assertion.

Posted by Ban Johnson | February 29, 2008 5:02 PM

Aren't primary votes still secret?

Good heavens. So when people talk about Obama's strong support among independents and the youth vote, they are violating people's privacy!

Here's the exit polls translated into votes

Overall Dems since the beginning of primaries--including caucuses--Clinton is up. Now, this is an imperfect measure, obviously. But her strong support among white and Hispanic Democrats is well outside any margin of error. I gave Obama all the caucuses as Dem voters. Using that, Clinton is up in the overall Dem vote by about 4%, 52-48.

Of the four elections since Super Tuesday, three were disproportionately black. This does not mean they don't count. It does mean that there's no evidence that he's increased support among the other Democrat voters. In all three states, he won the overall Dem vote, but he lost the white Democrat vote--in Virginia by 10 points, in Maryland by 13 points, and in Wisconsin (his closest yet, thanks to a large college turnout) by 3 points.

really even mathematically possible she's been winning Democrats

Actually, it was mathematically possible in Wisconsin. One in three primary voters was independent or Republican. However, the 5% black vote gave Obama the win (which, again, is not a bad thing. Just not evidence of increased support).

Taken in combination, Clinton's got a strong argument for staying in the race if Texas is the only primary she loses. And it would make her case stronger if she narrowly loses or actually wins the combined Dem vote in those four states.

Posted by Cal | February 29, 2008 5:26 PM

Delegates don't matter. If the Dems think they have a better shot with Hillary, they can put Hillary forward using superdelegates. So she doesn't have to worry about delegates. She only needs a credible reason to stay in.

The idea that the party would allow the superdelegates to overturn the results from primary voters is, frankly, delusional. This would be the party committing political suicide. It would almost certainly end a number of political careers including Hillary Clinton's, who would enter the general election in a very weak position having not been able to even win her own primary in a democratic way.

I have said before that their only chance of pulling something like this off is if Obama would agree to swallow an awful tasting bucket of his own pride and accept a post as VP, the shittiest job in Washington. There would be little to no real political value to himself to accept this except to position himself as saviour of the party after it just tried to immolate itself. Even then he would be much better off declining such an offer and running for Governer of Illinois or taking some high profile WH cabinet position in the highly unlikely event that Clinton is able to win with a pissed off and badly divided Democratic electorate.

Posted by brent | February 29, 2008 5:26 PM

The so-called Automatic Delegates will not overturn the pledged delegate count. They could conceivable rig the game by seating the FL and MI delegates. However it appears increasingly likely that even that result would not give Clinton a pledged delegate lead over Obama. So what then?

I hope they seat the FL and MI and lose! The would be the highlight. What then? They would continue to make Fantasyland-based assertions like the sky isn't blue, it's pink, the world is flat, etc and the press would go along weighing both sides of the "argument."

Posted by Peter K. | February 29, 2008 5:33 PM

The so-called Automatic Delegates will not overturn the pledged delegate count. They could conceivable rig the game by seating the FL and MI delegates. However it appears increasingly likely that even that result would not give Clinton a pledged delegate lead over Obama. So what then?

I hope they seat the FL and MI delegates and still lose! The would be the highlight. What then? They would continue to make Fantasyland-based assertions like the sky isn't blue, it's pink, the world is flat, etc and the press would go along weighing both sides of the "argument."

Posted by Peter K. | February 29, 2008 5:34 PM

It's fitting that the Clinton Campaign would try to spin such an antiquated idea, therefore, that "they are beating Obama with Democrats." No data exists on such on a such an assertion,

Thanks for pointing that out, Gregor (and Ban). People here have been discussing Clinton's supposed lead among Democrats as if it's fact, but I haven't seen any numbers that say that, and the primary results suggest otherwise. Obama's won plenty of closed primary states like Maryland.

I have seen claims that Obama loses to Clinton among white Democrats, but that's an absurdly-sliced demographic--why would you make election projections based on a number that cuts out the most reliable Democratic constituency? (And, for that matter, the independent constituency that any candidate must win in the general election.) The Clinton campaign is going through ever more absurd calculations to generate numbers that make them look like they're winning. I doubt many voters or superdelegates will agree.

(Also, I suspect any lead Clinton does hold among white Democrats is dependent on her early performance in high-population Super Tuesday states like California and New York. Those numbers will be of less value as projections for November--Obama's campaign looks a lot more viable and appealing today, and those states are likely to go Democratic in November regardless of the nominee.)

Posted by Marc | February 29, 2008 5:36 PM

Obama's won plenty of closed primary states like Maryland.

Dangit, I forgot that my state is "disproportionately black."

Actually, it was mathematically possible in Wisconsin. One in three primary voters was independent or Republican. However, the 5% black vote gave Obama the win

The 5% black vote, which made up 8% of the Wisconsin primary vote, gave Obama his 17% win?

THAT, my friend, is disproportionately black.

Posted by Marc | February 29, 2008 5:48 PM

Finally (last one, I swear), I have to question some of those calculations at Cal's link. Do they seriously think black Democrats were 43% of all voters in New Hampshire? A state that's less than one percent black? A lot of those numbers simply don't add up. Anybody know how that page arrived at them?

Posted by Marc | February 29, 2008 6:03 PM

Yeah, there's some dubious numbers on Cal's link. And it includes Michigan and Florida, where neither candidate even campaigned...stay classy, Clintonistas. And it's based on unreliable exit poll data, (possibly cherry-picked for maximum Clinton support.) Also, its approach obviously disenfranchises the caucus states, since a smaller slice of the population caucuses than votes at primaries.
After all that, Clinton ekes out a victory among previously registered Democrats. Congratulations, Mrs. President.

It's nonsense on so many different levels. It should be paid no heed.

I kind of like going by pledged delegates, since THAT'S WHAT THE CANDIDATES HAVE ACTUALLY BEEN PLAYING FOR! (Pardon the scream.)

Posted by Ban Johnson | February 29, 2008 7:09 PM

Hillary has a good reason to drag this race and keep attacking Obama, even if she knows that she has no chance of getting a lead in pledged delegates.

It will increase Obama's chances of losing in Nov, so she can try for the nomination again in 2012. After 3 straight terms by a Republican Prez, people would be very likely to pick a Democrat as President in 2012.

Posted by KR | February 29, 2008 7:33 PM

Hillary has a good reason to drag this race and keep attacking Obama, even if she knows that she has no chance of getting a lead in pledged delegates.

It will increase Obama's chances of losing in Nov, so she can try for the nomination again in 2012. After 3 straight terms by a Republican Prez, people would be very likely to pick a Democrat as President in 2012.

That's a very dangerous political game she'd be playing. (Selfish also, obviously, but that obviously doesn't raise any eyebrows when it comes to the Clintons.) Dems will hold it against her permanently if she hurts Obama's chances in any obvious way. She's already skirting the line with some of her tactics.

Posted by Ban Johnson | February 29, 2008 7:40 PM

Here's an odd sideswipe:

"Senator Obama has campaigned hard in these states. He has spent time meeting editorial boards, courting endorsers, holding rallies, and - of course - making speeches."

There you go again, Barack. Making speeches. So shallow, so callow. Can't be trusted with the red phone...

Posted by Asp | February 29, 2008 11:05 PM

Here's an odd sideswipe:

"Senator Obama has campaigned hard in these states. He has spent time meeting editorial boards, courting endorsers, holding rallies, and - of course - making speeches."

There you go again, Barack. Making speeches. So shallow, so callow. Can't be trusted with the red phone...

Posted by Asp | February 29, 2008 11:07 PM

These nitwit Clinton supporters who jump on this blog making asinine remarks just because Matt correctly points out some idiocy on the part of the Clinton campaign are the reason Clinton should not get the candidacy even if she actually wins it.

The reality is it's beginning to look like Bill is going to have to hunt up the phone numbers of his assassins in his cell phone directory to keep Obama from winning this.

I suspect, however, that Bill can't find anybody on short notice capable of producing a "lone gunman" to spec before the convention.

Sorry, Bill, I'm not available for that job.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | February 29, 2008 11:45 PM

I think that Stephen Colbert said it best (although he was talking as a Giuliani advisor) :

The fools ! They think they will win by... winning !

Posted by Marshall | March 1, 2008 9:52 AM