Good News for People Who Like Bad Predictions

I know a number of readers have been perturbed by my predictions of an Obama win, figuring that since I'm always wrong I'd jinxed things and put Hillary Clinton in a commanding position. Well, I was reading Chris Bowers' analysis of the polls and it's clear that while Obama's done an impressive job of making up lost ground in Ohio, he's going to lose there. The Texas polling, meanwhile, is too close to call. Obama certainly might win it, but he really might lose.

Now under the circumstances, I see no real way for Clinton to make up the lost delegate lead, but at this point it does seem to me that she and her campaign staff are probably egomaniacal enough that if they pull out a narrow "win" they'll keep running anyway hoping for lightning to strike and seeing the damage it'll do to the party as a feature, rather than a bug, since a crippled Obama who loses to John McCain could set them up for another run in 2012.

Comments

". . . seeing the damage it'll do to the party as a feature, rather than a bug, since a crippled Obama who loses to John McCain could set them up for another run in 2012."

Yeah, there's no downside for Hillary personally in continuing until the money dries up. As always, it will be all about her.

Posted by Helter | March 3, 2008 2:06 PM

sigh.

Posted by jay | March 3, 2008 2:07 PM

Matthew, you've lost it. For one thing, attributing all manner of evil to the Clintons--they'll stop at nothing to win, if not now, then in 2012--you sound like a Republican.

Secondly, if Hillary wins Ohio and Texas, the narrative of the campaign changes. Obama no longer has the "big mo." Things start to shift back to Clinton. True, she can't win on the basis of caucuses and primaries, but then, neither can Obama.

Third, for cripes sakes, it's only March. The convention is not until August. All the delegates won't be chosen until June. Why should she get out now?

Posted by John Petty | March 3, 2008 2:09 PM

I hate the Clintons so much.

It's Monday, is Hilary crying yet?

Posted by Chris | March 3, 2008 2:09 PM

If that is her plan -- and I think it is -- the party elders need to pull the plug. The only shot she has at the nomination is for Obama to somehow implode and the super delegates to move to her en mass. But, seriously, is the party going to let her spend the next three months making McCain's argument for him on the off chance that she'll grope her way to a tipping point? Is there anyone who can reach out to her and put the brakes on? Or are the Clintons above, or outside of, the party at this point?

Posted by pjs | March 3, 2008 2:10 PM

I agree with Matt about everything except for one part (even admitting that the Clintons think they are damaging Obama): Why is it bad electorally for Democrats to be fighting about Democratic ideas for a longer time w/ free media, while keeping John McCain out of the media, and continuing to raise large amounts of money.

Clinton: Obama isn't liberal enough or tought enough.

Obama: I'm both liberal enough and tough enough, and better on foreign policy. I'm even anti-NAFTA

Clinton: You're not as anti-NAFTA as me!

Voters: Well he's anti-NAFTA and maybe kind of conservative, Clinton said so, and she's really liberal.

I am not saying it always works this way, but I don't think this primary is a bad thing.

Posted by Joel W | March 3, 2008 2:13 PM

pjs, the problem with the 'party elders' hope is that the two most powerful party elders in the Democratic Party are... Bill and Hillary Clinton.

Posted by matthewcc | March 3, 2008 2:15 PM

She's staying in precisely to hurt Obama for the fall, just like the Clintons had absolutely no interest in helping Kerry in '04. That they wanted him to lose was transparent. But let's be clear; they are delusional if they think Hillary has another run in her in four years. She's not going to be president; she is going to set fire to the party if it isn't hers to cry when she wants to.

Posted by V. | March 3, 2008 2:16 PM

Wow, Matt...you've crossed into Vince-Foster-conspiracy-theory land with this one, haven't you? Do you have the slightest bit of evidence to support that theory?

I'm no huge fan of HRC, but criminy, she's not Evil Incarnate. Maybe you need a vacation, dude.

Posted by Glenn | March 3, 2008 2:19 PM

She can't stop. She's been running for 35 years.

Regarding NAFTA, Miss holier than thou is trying to be above it all?!!! Now- that is funny! She is going after Obama big time on this memo crap and sees an opening.

If her campaign is any indication of how she will be running things- then it is time to run for the hills!

I , for one, will not vote.

Posted by 100 percent | March 3, 2008 2:22 PM

Ohio strikes again. This state's track record at the ballot box is getting awfully hard to defend whenever I leave its friendly confines.

I think if Obama wins both Texas and the overall delegate battle tomorrow, you could see a groundswell among the superdelegates to wrap it up. But anything short of that and it's going to be a long hard slog till August, because if Obama can't win in Ohio he's not likely to win in Pennsylvania.

One question I have: did the "3 AM telephone" ad ever actually run anywhere, or was it one of those ads produced only so that the media could chatter about it? Both candidates are on TV nonstop here in Ohio, and I haven't seen that ad once. It's all stuff about the economy.

Posted by ChuckE | March 3, 2008 2:25 PM

I am with Matt. Look at what happened to the Patriots when the Giants didn't give up after the Pats took the lead. No one wants to see perfection ruined by a clearly inferior team.

Posted by Matt Yglesias, | March 3, 2008 2:27 PM

Let me get this straight: If HRC wins Ohio and TX (and RI) tomorrow, she should quit?

And I suppose if that happens, and she doesn't heed the call of the sage blogger-elders, and wins PA, then she should really, really quit.

Posted by Andruw | March 3, 2008 2:29 PM

There is a really disturbing pattern that has emerged over the last year among Obama supporters becoming Clinton-haters. It's kind of ironic that for all the talk of Hillary's supposed feeling of entitlement towards the nomination, the evidence here is that Obama supporters feel he is entitled. How dare the Clintons stand in the way of the first serious African American candidate for the nomination... they must be racist!

Now literally everything Hillary or Bill Clinton say or do is deemed evidence of their selfishness, megalomania and evil intent.

It's frightening, it's conspiratorial and it's pathetic.

Posted by Tim K | March 3, 2008 2:30 PM

John Petty's right. Why the sinister view? Can't Hillary just be thinking she can win all the important remaining contests, get close in the delegate totals, and then persuade most of the superdelegates to go with her? In this hypothetical, I suppose she'd argue she has all the momentum, was now the clear choice of the majority of Democratic voters, and had proven to be the superior candidate in the most important swing states (Ohio and Florida). Now that might be a weak argument but it's not evil to make it.

Posted by Decal | March 3, 2008 2:30 PM

Tim, you miss the key point that it's essentially impossible for Clinton to win the nomination at this point. And her staying in, arguably, does nothing but hurt Obama's and other Democrats' chances in fall.

And it's laughable to see a Clinton supporter talk about entitlement.

Posted by Zephyrus | March 3, 2008 2:35 PM

Both candidates are on TV nonstop here in Ohio, and I haven't seen that ad once. It's all stuff about the economy.

I was wondering that too. I'm in VT and all I get is warm-and-fuzzies. OTOH, conventional wisdom holds that negative advertising in Vermont is as productive as pissing up a rope, so....

Posted by Persia | March 3, 2008 2:35 PM

Is the Chris Matthews "Kill the baby in the crib" theory?

Interesting!

The hits from the Atlantic Staff just keep coming.

More please!

Posted by garage mahal | March 3, 2008 2:36 PM

Tim K, you're hardly the ideal representative of Clinton supporters who do-not-also-have-Obama-Derangement-Syndrome.

As for Yglesias, the moment he predicted an Obama win was the moment all his momentum went downhill and now it appears Clinton will win both TX and OH comfortably. Thanks a lot, man...

Posted by Korha | March 3, 2008 2:37 PM

"Can't Hillary just be thinking she can win all the important remaining contests, get close in the delegate totals, and then persuade most of the superdelegates to go with her?"

Yes she can, and if she does this, it will tear the party apart at the convention. When your only chance of winning involves tearing the party apart, it's probably time to walk away.

Posted by some guy | March 3, 2008 2:39 PM

Zephyrus:

Wrong. It's essentially impossible IF she loses Texas or Ohio. We won't know until tomorrow.

If she wins both those states and there's evidence these latest attacks on Barack Obama are working, that's not good news for Obama. Remember that neither candidate can get to the required number of delegates to clinch the nomination with automatic delegates. And they can vote however they wish.

Posted by Tim K | March 3, 2008 2:40 PM

The posted by was truncated.
It should read
Matt Yglesias "Now with more Sullivanisms"

Posted by not MY | March 3, 2008 2:40 PM

You Obama folks ought not to count your chickens before they're hatched. If Hillary wins in TX and OH--which she may well do--then the story of the campaign changes. Hillary would then have the momentum as the calendar moves into move Hillary-friendly states.

As for the guy who won't vote for Hillary if St. Obama doesn't make it, I'm not surprised. When the far left insurgency fizzles out, as it typically does, they always sulk off and vote for some doofus niche candidate like Nader.

Posted by John Petty | March 3, 2008 2:42 PM

Looking at the latest polls, it's safe to say that she'll probably win Ohio by, say, 10 points, and *probably*, if the turnout is in her favor, have a narrow win in Texas. In which case, God forbid, she's in this thing till Pennsylvania. Which is just well - after hearing rumblings about Obama campaign people arrogantly and prematurely suggesting that Clinton should "drop out" after Tuesday, a wake-up call is probably deserved.

Posted by Abby | March 3, 2008 2:43 PM

"Why is it bad electorally for Democrats to be fighting about Democratic ideas for a longer time w/ free media, while keeping John McCain out of the media, and continuing to raise large amounts of money."

Because inevitably you reach a point where the race turns so bitter that each candidates strongest supporters are more likely to vote for the other party's candidates than hand a victory to the other side. It becomes like a civil war.

So far, that's mostly been avoided. But it's gotten worse in the past couple of weeks, and it's only going to get more bitter. You can complain about the phenomena, wish it wasn't there, etc.- but that's the nature of politics.

Posted by Helterq | March 3, 2008 2:52 PM

John Petty,

MY's perspective seems right to me. Saying that Sen. Clinton will do anything to win isn't opinion so much as fact. it's not a republican talking point so much as fact. whether the issue is:

> preparing a lawsuit to shut down the caucuses in Nevada

> push polling using "Hussein" in Nevada

> repeated attempts to insinuate that Obama was a drug dealer

> attempting to define Obama as "The Black Candidate" after losing iowa

> sending out patently untrue mailers about Obama's pro-choice record in New Hampshire (and then having the hypocrisy of accusing Obama of playing dirty with mailers)

> labeling Obama's supporters as cult-ish, thereby seeking to further discredit and de-legitimize Obama's success -- much like the theory that the only states that matter are those that Clinton wins

> making an add that falsely claimed Obama made statements about Reagan which he DID NOT, only to have the add removed when the press called her on lying

> threatening yet another lawsuit in Texas

> going back on her pledge that the delegations in Florida and Michigan won't be seated during this campaign, and attempting to change the rules in the middle of the game now that it's politically beneficial for her, thus creating a very anti-Obama sentiment now among Florida votes when all he did was follow the rules

> pushing the Rezko story in the media using ONLY innuendo to try to smear Obama, despite the fact that no one (including the FBI) has accused him of any wrongdoing

> AND pushing this innuendo while Clinton herself has absolutely no credibility herself on mattes of campaign finance, see
here http://www.newsday.com/news/local/wire/newyork/ny-bc-ny--democraticfundrai0228feb28,0,4653230.story
here http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-jinnah29feb29,1,2014489.story?ctrack=2&cset=true
and here http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB118973400928827314-rv8T2EM0ONBOhA2IkZOvIVHM_Vc_20071013.html?mod=tff_main_tff_top
(that I am aware of).

> refusing to release her tax returns so the media and public can see who is financing her campaign -- this to me is a HUGE deal -- since she is basically saying: "I'll stop being secretive only after I am your nominee, that way I can claim that the "right wing attack machine" is coming after me as opposed to a fellow Democrat."

> dragging her feet, and possibly lying (http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/02/white-house-b-1.html ) about the circumstance surrounding the release of her White House Library records. Understand this: these records are the ONLY actual, physical documents that would evidence what exactly Sen. Clinton did each day as First Lady. This is the heart of her claims to "experience" and she won't let us see them. Sen. Obama's votes are for the public to see and critique, but Sen. Clinton's schedules are, regrettably, still clouded in secrecy.

> and who can forget the famous Drudge photo? which you can believe or not that it came from Clinton's staffers on some level -- but the money line about there being a double standard in the media is precisely the same claim that they are making today

By the Clinton campaign's own admission, they are prepared to throw the kitchen sink at Obama, and they are, and with each innuendo and smear they are only giving legitimacy to the republicans who will pick up these pieces of trash and run with them.

It's clear that Sen. Clinton discovered long ago that the ONLY way she could win this race was to play in the dirt. On a debate about the issues: she loses. In terms of likeability: she loses. In terms of overall strength as a candidate and electibility: she loses. She and her advisors knew this after Iowa, so they figured if they dragged Obama through the mud, people would figure: "well, if they're both dirty, why not go with the known commodity."

Its politics, but the hypocrisy from Sen. Clinton who claims to want to run an issues based campaign is staggering. the dirt and the Machiavellian approach is all the Clinton's know, it is what she considers, "the fun part."

Posted by Enough | March 3, 2008 2:53 PM

John Petty,

MY's perspective seems right to me. Saying that Sen. Clinton will do anything to win isn't opinion so much as fact. it's not a republican talking point so much as fact. whether the issue is:

> preparing a lawsuit to shut down the caucuses in Nevada

> push polling using "Hussein" in Nevada

> repeated attempts to insinuate that Obama was a drug dealer

> attempting to define Obama as "The Black Candidate" after losing iowa

> sending out patently untrue mailers about Obama's pro-choice record in New Hampshire (and then having the hypocrisy of accusing Obama of playing dirty with mailers)

> labeling Obama's supporters as cult-ish, thereby seeking to further discredit and de-legitimize Obama's success -- much like the theory that the only states that matter are those that Clinton wins

> making an add that falsely claimed Obama made statements about Reagan which he DID NOT, only to have the add removed when the press called her on lying

> threatening yet another lawsuit in Texas

> going back on her pledge that the delegations in Florida and Michigan won't be seated during this campaign, and attempting to change the rules in the middle of the game now that it's politically beneficial for her, thus creating a very anti-Obama sentiment now among Florida votes when all he did was follow the rules

> pushing the Rezko story in the media using ONLY innuendo to try to smear Obama, despite the fact that no one (including the FBI) has accused him of any wrongdoing

> AND pushing this innuendo while Clinton herself has absolutely no credibility herself on mattes of campaign finance, see
here http://www.newsday.com/news/local/wire/newyork/ny-bc-ny--democraticfundrai0228feb28,0,4653230.story
here http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-jinnah29feb29,1,2014489.story?ctrack=2&cset=true
and here http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB118973400928827314-rv8T2EM0ONBOhA2IkZOvIVHM_Vc_20071013.html?mod=tff_main_tff_top
(that I am aware of).

> refusing to release her tax returns so the media and public can see who is financing her campaign -- this to me is a HUGE deal -- since she is basically saying: "I'll stop being secretive only after I am your nominee, that way I can claim that the "right wing attack machine" is coming after me as opposed to a fellow Democrat."

> dragging her feet, and possibly lying (http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/02/white-house-b-1.html ) about the circumstance surrounding the release of her White House Library records. Understand this: these records are the ONLY actual, physical documents that would evidence what exactly Sen. Clinton did each day as First Lady. This is the heart of her claims to "experience" and she won't let us see them. Sen. Obama's votes are for the public to see and critique, but Sen. Clinton's schedules are, regrettably, still clouded in secrecy.

> and who can forget the famous Drudge photo? which you can believe or not that it came from Clinton's staffers on some level -- but the money line about there being a double standard in the media is precisely the same claim that they are making today

By the Clinton campaign's own admission, they are prepared to throw the kitchen sink at Obama, and they are, and with each innuendo and smear they are only giving legitimacy to the republicans who will pick up these pieces of trash and run with them.

It's clear that Sen. Clinton discovered long ago that the ONLY way she could win this race was to play in the dirt. On a debate about the issues: she loses. In terms of likeability: she loses. In terms of overall strength as a candidate and electibility: she loses. She and her advisors knew this after Iowa, so they figured if they dragged Obama through the mud, people would figure: "well, if they're both dirty, why not go with the known commodity."

Its politics, but the hypocrisy from Sen. Clinton who claims to want to run an issues based campaign is staggering. the dirt and the Machiavellian approach is all the Clinton's know, it is what she considers, "the fun part."

Posted by Enough | March 3, 2008 2:55 PM

Best post ever. The only thing missing is the logic for superdelegates to stay on board with Hillary Clinton once she is mathematically prevented from getting the most delegates from voters. It's not garlic or a silver cross that is going to scare off the Clinton vampire, it's the collective finger from 80% of House Democrats who see what happened to the Democrats in Congress during the Clinton years and will say 'Thanks but no thanks'. It won't be the press or Obama that does in the Clinton campaign. It will be her fellow elected Dems and party leaders who would rather not be passengers on a train hellbent on wrecking. The winner and still champion as the most powerful woman in American history....Speaker Nancy Pelosi!

Posted by joejoejoe | March 3, 2008 2:57 PM

Various comments:

I agree that it would be great free press if the two last Dem candidates were debating liberal issues for the next couple of months, but that's not what we're getting. Instead, we get Hillary's overpaid campaign staff sending emails to the media that laughably say "What will the Republicans do with this photo of Obama in tribal garb? Hmmm..." Well I don't know, you smug bastard, maybe they would suggestively forward it to the media, just like you just did.

Nobody thinks that Obama "is entitled to be the nominee," they think he's earned it by winning more states, more votes, and more delegates. To the point where Hillary has an increasinly smaller chance.

If Obama wins 10 straight states by double digits and Hillary were able to squeak out 2 or 3 wins by 4%, she does not "have the Big Mo." How about a media narrative of "she's attempting to stop the bleeding"?

Posted by cd6 | March 3, 2008 2:58 PM

John Petty,

MY's perspective seems right to me. Saying that Sen. Clinton will do anything to win isn't opinion so much as fact. it's not a republican talking point so much as fact. whether the issue is:

> preparing a lawsuit to shut down the caucuses in Nevada

> push polling using "Hussein" in Nevada

> repeated attempts to insinuate that Obama was a drug dealer

> attempting to define Obama as "The Black Candidate" after losing iowa

> sending out patently untrue mailers about Obama's pro-choice record in New Hampshire (and then having the hypocrisy of accusing Obama of playing dirty with mailers)

> labeling Obama's supporters as cult-ish, thereby seeking to further discredit and de-legitimize Obama's success -- much like the theory that the only states that matter are those that Clinton wins

> making an add that falsely claimed Obama made statements about Reagan which he DID NOT, only to have the add removed when the press called her on lying

> threatening yet another lawsuit in Texas

> going back on her pledge that the delegations in Florida and Michigan won't be seated during this campaign, and attempting to change the rules in the middle of the game now that it's politically beneficial for her, thus creating a very anti-Obama sentiment now among Florida votes when all he did was follow the rules

> pushing the Rezko story in the media using ONLY innuendo to try to smear Obama, despite the fact that no one (including the FBI) has accused him of any wrongdoing

> AND pushing this innuendo while Clinton herself has absolutely no credibility herself on mattes of campaign finance, (see Norman Hsu, Abdul Rehman Jinnah, and Peter Paul...that I am aware of).

> refusing to release her tax returns so the media and public can see who is financing her campaign -- this to me is a HUGE deal -- since she is basically saying: "I'll stop being secretive only after I am your nominee, that way I can claim that the "right wing attack machine" is coming after me as opposed to a fellow Democrat."

> dragging her feet, and possibly lying (http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/02/white-house-b-1.html ) about the circumstance surrounding the release of her White House Library records. Understand this: these records are the ONLY actual, physical documents that would evidence what exactly Sen. Clinton did each day as First Lady. This is the heart of her claims to "experience" and she won't let us see them. Sen. Obama's votes are for the public to see and critique, but Sen. Clinton's schedules are, regrettably, still clouded in secrecy.

> and who can forget the famous Drudge photo? which you can believe or not that it came from Clinton's staffers on some level -- but the money line about there being a double standard in the media is precisely the same claim that they are making today

By the Clinton campaign's own admission, they are prepared to throw the kitchen sink at Obama, and they are, and with each innuendo and smear they are only giving legitimacy to the republicans who will pick up these pieces of trash and run with them.

It's clear that Sen. Clinton discovered long ago that the ONLY way she could win this race was to play in the dirt. On a debate about the issues: she loses. In terms of likeability: she loses. In terms of overall strength as a candidate and electibility: she loses. She and her advisors knew this after Iowa, so they figured if they dragged Obama through the mud, people would figure: "well, if they're both dirty, why not go with the known commodity."

Its politics, but the hypocrisy from Sen. Clinton who claims to want to run an issues based campaign is staggering. the dirt and the Machiavellian approach is all the Clinton's know, it is what she considers, "the fun part."

Posted by Enough | March 3, 2008 3:00 PM

Clinton winning the nomination based on support from superdelegates will not tear the party apart. Clinton is the candidate of the Democratic Party appartchiks and most Democrats like her.
What it will do is
1)anger African Americans - They may stay home in November but for the most part they will remain committed Democrats.
2)piss off Obama supporters - A large portion of this group is not necessarily committed to the Democratic Party. An Obama loss could turn off the young voters on politics but that is more a missed opportunity than a fracture within the Dem. Party
3)turn off the activist class - Many Dem activists would turn their attention to down ballot races or changing the rules and structure of the Party. Not a bad thing in the least

A Clinton "win" may even offset some of the November defections by increasing turnout among women and Hispanics. Clinton winning the nomination based on a supermajority of appointed delegates is far from optimal but it will not
'tear the party apart.'

Posted by triple R | March 3, 2008 3:01 PM

Enough, you might be interested in reading Sean Wilentz's take on who really played the "race card" in this campaign.

As for NV, it was the Obama campaign which ran a Spanish-language ad in NV talking about how Hillary doesn't support "our people."

Please, we've all had our feathers ruffled by something in the other campaign. The fact is that we have two strong candidates who have run, mostly, pretty positive campaigns. Yes, each campaign has tested the limits, but, by and large, this is one of the cleanest campaigns in my memory.

Posted by John Petty | March 3, 2008 3:04 PM

triple R, you forgot

4) cost us the presidency

I'm with Donna Brazile on this one. A year ago, if you had asked me to name something Hillary could do that would make me not vote for her in a general election, I am not sure I could've named anything she would have plausibly done (I could have said "shake a baby" or something, I guess). Now, thanks to the genius of her campaign, we have found out what that thing is.

Fortunately, the victory-through-superdelegates scenario appears to be next to impossible at this point.

Posted by Jen | March 3, 2008 3:14 PM

Tim K.

"Wrong. It's essentially impossible IF she loses Texas or Ohio. We won't know until tomorrow.

If she wins both those states and there's evidence these latest attacks on Barack Obama are working, that's not good news for Obama. Remember that neither candidate can get to the required number of delegates to clinch the nomination with automatic delegates. And they can vote however they wish."

Before, after the 11 state losing streak - some by wide margins - Hillary needed to win Texas, Ohio and Pennsylvania big, 60-40 or better.

Now, she just needs to barely win them.

Before New Hampshire, she pledged by the DNC collective's decision not to campaign in Florida and Michigan.

Now, that she's losing she'll fight to seat delegates from states that didn't abide by the rules.

The media has been cutting the Hillary campaign too much slack.

Posted by Peter K. | March 3, 2008 3:15 PM

You're nuts. There were plenty of reasons for her to stay in until Texas/Ohio, but unless she wins big she knows the race is over. Obama can raise more money than her, and the delegate gap is something that no argument of superdelegates can overcome (and she knows that).

There's a six-week gap for her campaign staff to tell her what's happening, and there are already rumors that her supporters and staff aren't staying on unless it's a big win. It also wouldn't take much of a superdelegate commitment to finish the race, which I'm sure the party leaders can force if it becomes an issue. I'm not saying that there will be a concession speech on Tuesday night, but you can expect one before Friday.

Now, if she wins enough to tie up the delegate count, then I'd expect her to stay in the race. But that's not happening.

Posted by Alex | March 3, 2008 3:22 PM

Nice cut and paste Enough.
You do realize that about 2/3 of what your claims about the Clinton campaign are also true of the Obama campaign. False mailers, pushing stories in the press, using surrogates. You also seem to be confused on the difference between personal finances and campaign finances.

Clinton and every other candidate pledged not to campaign in Michigan and Florida not that the delegates should not be seated. Interestingly enough, Obama ran ads in Florida and talked to the press there.

Obama has produced zero documents including his schedule and calendar from his time in the Illinois legislature. I wonder what he was up to.

You should email the O campaign so you can at least get credible talking points. Much like the man himself, you are not so good at working off the script.

Better luck next time

Posted by Enough = hack | March 3, 2008 3:33 PM

Re: dislike of Clinton. The person who puffs her resume and runs against the very concept of hope is not someone I want for President. The person who makes a moral issue out of a technical disagreement on health care is not someon I want for President. The person who voted for war without even acknolwedging that's what she was doing is not someone I want for president. If Clinton ran on her own strengths and her own merits, a positive campaign, it wouldn't be an issue. Instead, she's insulted the entire country by declaring herself inevitable and casting those who happen to favor a different candidate as sexist apostates or something. Or naive. Or out of touch elitists (funny, coming from the person who hired Mark Penn). What emerges is someone about whose character reasonable people can have serious questions without being loons or pigs. And the logistics of having her husband around, with his disbarrment and his speechmaking business, raises its own set of issues. Now, I don't want John McCain, either. It only comes down to that choice, however, if Hillary's negative attacks continue and are rewarded.

As a native Pennsylvanian, please never compare my state to Ohio again.

Posted by David B. | March 3, 2008 3:44 PM

and seeing the damage it'll do to the party as a feature, rather than a bug, since a crippled Obama who loses to John McCain could set them up for another run in 2012.

That is despicably ... disgustingly ... cynical.

It just goes to establish yet again, the mindless, idiotic hatred practically everyone in the media .. R or D, cons or lib -- have for Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton and the Clintons.

(And I say this as a mild Obama supporter.)

Posted by m | March 3, 2008 3:51 PM

Enough = hack,

no cut and paste, sorry. the multiple posts came from a slow server today. and that post was all me, and is defensible. so let's have at it.

Obama bought NATIONAL ad buys, a small percentage of which spilled over into Florida, because Florida, as it happens, is part of the NATIONAL ad buy market.

Is this the same thing as Clinton holding 3 "fundraisers" in Florida in the days building up to the election; fundraisers which got her press coverage and photo ops which ran in local media?

Is this also the same as scheduling a pre-announced campaign "victory party" in a state whose delegates were said not to count, by all the candidates

Obama didnt step foot in Florida before the election like Clinton did; and everyone saw that for what it was.

You might want to also talk to the labor unions in Florida who were making calls and distributing literature on her behalf before the election.

Aside from the "boon" mailer, which was a Newsday characterization of Clinton's position -- which you are correct -- was retracted, what other "false" mailers can you point to? And what's more, the Obama campaign stopped sending out the boon mailers after Newsday had issues its retraction.

Contrast that with Clinton's mailers which repeatedly took Obama's NAFTA quotes out of context, and you're left scratching your head where her campaign gets off trying to take the moral high ground on campaign lit?

Planned Parenthood came out and said Clinton's NH mailer was 100 percent inaccurate. Obama's healthcare mailer, the famous "Harry and Louise" add states a true, albeit uncomfortable fact: Clinton's plan forces people to buy healthcare. And what's more, for all the talk you guys do of how specific your candidate is: she has yet, a year later, been able to tell us how she plans to enforce this mandate.

all campaigns use surrogates and push stories, no shit. but what type of stories do the campaigns push? which campaign has been peddling in trash since the beginning? my point was to look at the QUALITY of stories pushed by both campaigns: Clinton's handlers have pushed distinctly negative, personal hit stories; when the most personal Obama's campaign has gotten (up until recently arguably) is pointing out that Clinton has sky high negatives and is a polarizing figure.

its true that Obama hasnt released schedules from his Senate days; he claims he didnt keep the schedules...small office, limited staff. believe it or not (I'd prefer if he had kept more records personally), but this is TOTALLY DIFFERENT FROM WORKING TO MAKE SURE THE PUBLIC DOESNT SEE YOUR SCHEDULES.

and, my friend, with this charge you completely ignore that Sen. Clinton has made this effort. and you ignore the tax return problem.

and you try to argue I don't know the difference between personal finances and campaign finances, which, I'm sorry to say, is flatly untrue. But let me break it down for you in s.i.m.p.l.e t.e.r.m.s:

if the clintons dont release their tax returns, we dont know how they make their money. if she loans her campaign 5 million dollars, we have no idea where that financing came from. she say, "its my money." ok. but from where. this is a question of personal and campaign finances.

now, the indicted campaign contributors which i linked to are clearly questions of financing her campaign. and, for whatever you think about each case, there are more questions there that could be answered.

you want to cherry-pick sections of my post to try to blast, no problem, i can defend each one. question is, without conflating and misrepresenting my position, can you do the same?

Posted by Enough | March 3, 2008 4:05 PM

I think it clear that Hillary supporters have not looked at the numbers.

It is nearly impossible for her to make up the deficit and Obama has proven that he's not going to self-destruct.

The superdelegates are not going to overrule the will of the people because they know that the party will lose in the fall, and perhaps the damage will be longer-term than that.

It is nothing to do with entitlement, it has to do with the good of our party, which is starting to fray at the edges, in part, because Hillary has gone negative on Obama in such a manner that would make it difficult for her to turn around and support him fully when he is officially the nominee. And just about any rational person can see that.

Posted by Jay | March 3, 2008 4:55 PM

Shorter Matt: If Hillary wins Ohio and Texas they don't count

Posted by Rob | March 3, 2008 4:59 PM

They ran the red phone ad in Texas, from what I understand.
As an Obama supporter, I have a very bad feeling about tomorrow. (Let's keep lowering those expectations!)

Posted by John | March 3, 2008 5:04 PM

Wow, Matt...you've crossed into Vince-Foster-conspiracy-theory land with this one, haven't you? Do you have the slightest bit of evidence to support that theory?

Exhibit A: the ongoing pursuit to get the "delegates" in FL and MI counted, even the DNC discounted them months in advance (as a penalty for holding primaries out of order), although both campaigns promised not to campaign there and although Obama was not even on the ballot in MI.

Exhibit B: The Clinton threat to sue the Texas Democratic Party over its primary / caucus system, although it was never a problem until Hillary was losing.

Exhibit C: All of this in light of the fact that Hillary did not have one single organization in place for any primary after Super Tuesday because she assumed the nomination would be hers.

Well, fuck her.

There's your evidence.

Posted by chuck | March 3, 2008 5:19 PM

Tim K: I'm a liberal Obama supporter, and I've always hated the Clintons. Why, Bill Clinton destroyed the Democratic party and gave us the mushy dreck of "3rd way" politics! He moved the center to the right in this country, a job Bush continued.

Hillary Clinton has been a bland, centrist senator. After voting for the war, she had a few great moments taking on the military and the administration in committee, but that's about it. Legislation? Where's her great legislation?

We were just starting to dig ourselves out of the hole with the 2006 congressional election, and here come the Clintons again to bury us.

Posted by Bubba | March 3, 2008 5:29 PM

Matt, you've really crossed into "National Review" territory with this one.

At least TRY to consider the fact that even if Obama wins Ohio and Texas big, he will be nowhere near the 2025 needed delegates.

It is that close. There is NO math for either candidate, this will come down to a brokered convention.

Posted by Wellstone | March 3, 2008 5:43 PM

I'm no Clinton fan, and in fact am a left-liberal outside the Democratic party, but I think you're going too far on this, Matt. Like Kevin said, this is her one shot.

Posted by SocraticGadfly | March 3, 2008 5:46 PM

Are you kidding me about the tax returns? This isn't a 1040-Z we're talking about, you know. This tax return is 500 pages MINIMUM. And in order for her to release it, it requires coordinating with accountants, attorneys, any business partners, stockbrokers and senior campaign staffers to free up their schedules and go over the return with a fine-tooth comb, anticipating and preparing answers for questions like "Did you know when you purchased XYZ stock that it had been cited for human rights violations in several countries?"

Oh yeah, and they're supposed to do all this without losing ground in a hotly-contested primary where every minute counts.

Must be nice to live on thos Olympian heights!

Posted by Susie from Philly | March 3, 2008 6:06 PM

Wow. The Modest Mouse references are in the air at the wonky political magazine blogs. Last week, the New Republic speaks of "Hillary's Neverending Math Equation" and now this.

Of course, tomorrow we have the Ohi hi yi yo primary. If Hillary wins, I for one will need some dramamine. But former smoker Obama should sweep all the tiny cities made of ashes.

Now everyone do the cockroach.

Posted by Lord Growing | March 3, 2008 6:15 PM

Are you kidding me about the tax returns? This isn't a 1040-Z we're talking about, you know. This tax return is 500 pages MINIMUM. And in order for her to release it, it requires coordinating with accountants, attorneys, any business partners, stockbrokers and senior campaign staffers to free up their schedules and go over the return with a fine-tooth comb, anticipating and preparing answers for questions like "Did you know when you purchased XYZ stock that it had been cited for human rights violations in several countries?"

All of that is much, much less complicated than the business of running the executive branch. Remind me again about Clinton's proven ability to govern?

Posted by ML | March 3, 2008 6:29 PM

The Clintons could release the tax return if they wanted to. In fact, it should have been released before the Iowa caucuses. If they can dig up pictures of Obama in East Africa, they can find a lawyer and an accountant. The fact that they may have to answer uncomfortable questions about the sources of the money is hardly a defense!

But in this, and the expectations game, it's "we screwed up, thus Obama can't be President."

Posted by David B. | March 3, 2008 7:04 PM

Remind me again why there are these superdelegate thingies? Oh, wait - here's the Superdelegate Handbook:

If candidate A has a lead by one delegate going into the convention, all 800 (or so) superdelegates must rise, as one, and cry out to candidate B:

"Avaunt, cur! (or curlette, or whatever the female equivalent of a cur is) Thou hast failed to prevail fairly, equitably, popularly and Democratically. Depart thou to write a book or to the Senate, for that is thy just recompense!"

Oh, and they can also do this (I just checked para 12, Clause B of the Superdelegates Handbook) at the time when candidate A says he (or she) thinks they're pretty sure they'll have that majority of one, or more.

Powerful things, these elections.

Posted by Andrew | March 3, 2008 7:10 PM

I'm resigned to this thing going on for weeks to come. I'm not so sure it's entirely bad for the party, either. It builds ground organizations in state after state that could be a major factor in the fall, and anyway having a presumptive nominee early on doesn't seem to have helped much in 2004.

Posted by Steve LaBonne | March 3, 2008 8:13 PM

All this stuff about how Hillary should just go quietly reminds me of what they said about Gore in November-December 2000. What a bloated sense of entitlement he had to think that winning the popular vote by 500,000 and having more votes than the opponent in Florida if they were counted as prescribed by state law gave him some kind of a claim on the presidency. The argument that Hillary should give her concession speech tonight seems to be based mostly on "I don't like her, what makes her think she's entitled to aspire to be the nominee?"

Posted by gordonminor | March 3, 2008 8:21 PM

It's depressing that Matt Yglesias and others fail to realize that it's NOT just the Clintons who want Hillary to win, and perhaps to keep running: it's a SUBTANTIAL number of Dems (including ones in Florida like me who don't get any delegates) who want her to continue as well.

What has happened, that Obama supporters believe that the people who support Hillary aren't as serious about her as they are about Obama?

I don't think Obama has (yet) the qualifications to be president and I do believe that Hillary does. Nor do I believe that the delegate count is the only test of whether she should continue at this stage.

I want her to go on running till there is NO MORE CHANCE. Believe it.

Posted by damozel | March 3, 2008 8:23 PM

It's depressing that Matt Yglesias and others fail to realize that it's NOT just the Clintons who want Hillary to win, and perhaps to keep running: it's a SUBTANTIAL number of Dems (including ones in Florida like me who don't get any delegates) who want her to continue as well.

What has happened, that Obama supporters believe that the people who support Hillary aren't as serious about her as they are about Obama?

I don't think Obama has (yet) the qualifications to be president and I do believe that Hillary does. Nor do I believe that the current delegate count is the only test of whether she should continue at this stage.

http://bucknakedpolitics.typepad.com/buck_naked_politics/2008/03/clinton-positiv.html

I want her to go on running till there is NO MORE CHANCE. Believe it.

Posted by damozel | March 3, 2008 8:25 PM

When I look at the Clintons I see a Republican-style campaign being run by someone with the lack of judgement, or cowardice, to vote for the war. I loathe her utterly negative campaign, I'm developing an increasing distaste for her, and she seems as if she doesn't care at all about the party.

And, yea, she's going to win Ohio and maybe win Texas. She still can't get a delegate majority, and continuing is only testing themes out for McCain.

Posted by Marc | March 3, 2008 9:29 PM

According to the latest poll readings over at TPM, Texas is too close to call, and in Ohio Clinton has a SMALL lead - the max is six points, IIRC, and two polls have reverse opinions on that (one of them is Zogby, whose record this campaign hasn't been good.)

Nothing has really changed.

If Clinton wins in number of votes, she still has no where the number of delegates she needs to beat Obama.

Also, Obama may pull one of his "tons of new voters and independents" wins in both states.

I think the poll changes that have allowed Clinton to maintain her position are the result of no significant new anti-Clinton "events" - no crying jags, no this or that - except the article in MSNBC about her campaign accepting money from a company being sued for heavy sexual harassment, which apparently hasn't gotten much play elsewhere.

Bottom line: Clinton stayed steady, Obama gained ground and apparently has plateaued either tied to Clinton or at a slight loss.

Predicting a Clinton win that will materially change the delegate count or her chances of being nominated is stretching the situation at this point.

I suggest Matt shut up about this until after tomorrow.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | March 3, 2008 9:39 PM

The argument that Hillary should give her concession speech tonight seems to be based mostly on "I don't like her, what makes her think she's entitled to aspire to be the nominee?"

I thought it was based on the notion that there's no way she can erase the pledged delegate gap, or even close it very much, that there's no especial reason to think that superdelegates are going to give the nomination to someone who doesn't have a pledged delegate lead, and that even ignoring this, the only way Clinton can win is in a very ugly fight that will severely damage the party's chances of winning in November, no matter what the ultimate outcome.

Posted by John | March 3, 2008 9:57 PM

Sigh. I think it's safe to say that she will win Ohio and Texas tomorrow. After that, Obama will probably win every other contest except for KY, WV, and (maybe) PA. I don't see this being resolved any time soon.

Posted by Abby | March 3, 2008 10:02 PM

Clinton wins both tomorrow, and it's off to Pennsylvania.

How has this "He's a dirty Moozlum" meme not died yet? Well, I'm not saying it's coming from the top, but there have DEFINITELY been reports of her supporters spreading it.

Can you imagine what it would look like if an Obama supporter went around saying Hillary was a lesbian (which has been alleged, and is totally unsubstantiated, just like the Muslim thing).

Posted by Tony | March 3, 2008 10:12 PM

damozel:

Yes! WE want her to continue till there is NO MORE CHANCE!

Posted by eleanor | March 3, 2008 10:14 PM

Funny, but I was thinking the same thing as Matt. Today I became aware that Hillary doesn't care if she rips the party apart and destroys Obama. Actually I believe she would want to try to destroy him herself and then send him out to the republicans to lose.
I do hope he is able to turn the tables and take her out himself before that. Then, he'd be stronger and finally rid us of the Clintons altogether.
That would be a great day.

Posted by vwcat | March 3, 2008 10:33 PM

"having more votes than the opponent in Florida if they were counted as prescribed by state law"

You guys still actually believe that?

"it's NOT just the Clintons who want Hillary to win, and perhaps to keep running: it's a SUBTANTIAL number of Dems"

It's a lot of Republicans, too. I'm not one of them, but I'm definitely not one of you, and this is so much fun to watch.

Posted by Knemon | March 4, 2008 12:00 AM

Hillary Clinton is the American Rasputin. She's pure evil -- beyond redemption.

Posted by Angry Texan | March 4, 2008 12:05 AM

"I think it's safe to say that she will win Ohio and Texas tomorrow"

Based on what? The polls say a dead heat within the margin or error. So "safe to say" is not based on anything but blind faith.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | March 4, 2008 1:26 AM

Pledged delegates are irrelevant, I keep telling you people. Obamabots better get used to the notion that Clinton has a very good story, and if he doesn't put her away tomorrow--which he almost certainly won't--she's got an excellent shot at putting him away.

She will win Ohio. I'm not sure about Texas, although she seems fairly upbeat about the possibility. If she loses Texas narrowly, she can point to the fact that more Democrats voted for her on March 4--which will be the case regardless, unless the demographics have altered beyond all recognition and the polls haven't noticed.

So she'll stay in the race if she wins Ohio and Rhode Island. If she wins Texas too, Obama will be in trouble unless (as I've said all along), the Democrats are insane enough to support someone who can't win the race. Either way, unless things change dramatically, she wins Pennsylvania and why on earth should she quit? More Democrats will have voted for her, and the delegate allocation methods are precisely why superdelegates exist--to overrule them.

Posted by Cal | March 4, 2008 1:35 AM

Richard Steven Hack:

Based on what? The polls say a dead heat within the margin or error. So "safe to say" is not based on anything but blind faith.

Polls released over the past week has shown that momentum has possibly shifted in Clinton's favor in Texas. Obama was up +4 just a couple of days ago - now he's up by +1, if by that much. Crosstabs reveal that Clinton is regaining her core supporters in both TX and OH. And two new polls show Clinton with a lead of +6 in Texas. If these trends continue, then I think Clinton wins TX. The only way I see Obama winning is if he outperforms the polls (again) tomorrow, which has been happening all month. So, yeah... it's not really "blind faith" but my gut which tells me that Clinton will probably win Texas. I'd love to be proven wrong, by the way, because I'm certainly not a Clinton supporter, nor do I think I will ever be, to be honest.

Posted by Abby | March 4, 2008 2:01 AM

The race is essentially tied and it will remain tied after tomorrow. Neither candidate is going to win based on pledged delegates alone. It will all come down to super-delegates at the convention. Deal with it.

Posted by miguel | March 4, 2008 2:34 AM

This will be an amazing study in how not to run a national party operation...if the Clintons are allowed to go on as they have.

If they win Texas and Ohio, she should go on. She's earned it. But not before the party elders pull her aside and tell her we are democrats, not Rovarian Repubs and if they keep on with the baseless attack mess, they will pull the plug.

If they want to campaign on real issues, with real comparisons, fine...go on.

If they insist on using the Rove mess they have been lately, the party pulls the plug to save itself.

Posted by G Davis | March 4, 2008 2:35 AM

I don't particularly care for Clinton (too hawkish and Mark Penn should never be allowed within 1000 miles of any Dem campaign), but I'm beginning to feel some backlash against this "Clinton will destroy Obama and the party" meme. Her attacks are love pats compared to what he'll get from the GOP slime machine. And the idea that her advisers are giving material to the Republicans assumes they've come up with anything the goopers wouldn't have thought of themselves- which is a ludicrous idea. If Obama can't overcome a lite version of the attacks either Dem candidate will experience in the fall, he has a big problem.

Posted by Steve LaBonne | March 4, 2008 8:22 AM

GET USED TO IT, MATT. We will never give up. We will fight this all the way until Hillary Clinton is the nominee.

This isn't about Bill Clinton. This isn't about ego. She is the most qualified person to be president of the United States and we will fight and pull out all the stops to win the nomination. We are not backing down.

Your guy is going to collapse now that the heat is on. That press conference yesterday? 8 questions and he starts to whine. Ain't seen nothing yet.

Posted by Mark Whitney | March 4, 2008 12:51 PM

I think Senator Clinton is going to take both Ohio and Texas--this nomination, I believe, will go to the convention unresolved barring some totally unexpected disclosure. I my conspiracy driven world, I also think the media has a vested interest in keeping a horse race going as long as possible. Does wonders for viewer/readership.

Posted by rarango | March 4, 2008 5:05 PM