She finally gets the call. I was going to say that now it all comes down to Texas, but actually it's totally unclear exactly what's at stake in Texas. Naturally the spin now becomes that if HRC can win Ohio in the primary she can carry it in the general. In the real world, no such logic applies, and it's a good thing too because a Democrat would need to carry Obama-favoring swing states like Minnesota, Wisconsin, Iowa, and Missour and Clinton-favoring states like Ohio in order to win.
« The Real Enemy! | Main | Texas Math »
Ohio for Clinton
04 Mar 2008 10:53 pm
Comments (133)
Thanks again Ohio!
Regardless of what happens in Texas, she's going on. Let me be the first to say: ugh.
Looking at the results so far, they are going better for Clinton in every state than i thought.
She is up 19 in Rhode Island with 87% reporting and I was thinking she would win by 12 or so. Obama is up by 22 in Vermont with 81% reporting and I thought he would win by 30. Clinton is ahead in Ohio by 16 with 54% reporting and I though she would win by 6. And in Texas it is Clinton by 1 with 32% reporting and I though Obama would win by 3.
I suppose we will all be waiting for caucus results to see how things fall out.
So how many delegates is this Ohio win going to get her?
I mostly agree, although strictly speaking Obama does not need to win Ohio, nor does Clinton need to win MO or IA.
But Obama probably does need to win states like CA, NY, MA, NJ, just as Clinton likely needs to win states like CT, MD, DE, WI, MN, and WA.
Looking at the results so far, they are going better for Clinton in every state than i thought.
She is up 19 in Rhode Island with 87% reporting and I was thinking she would win by 12 or so. Obama is up by 22 in Vermont with 81% reporting and I thought he would win by 30. Clinton is ahead in Ohio by 16 with 54% reporting and I though she would win by 6. And in Texas it is Clinton by 1 with 32% reporting and I though Obama would win by 3.
I suppose we will all be waiting for caucus results to see how things fall out.
She finally gets the call.
And so far, it look like a blowout, no? With over 50% reporting, it is 58%-41%. Does that make it likely that Matthew's statement earlier tonight that "any delegate lead coming out of Ohio will be very small" will not be operative?
Permit me to guess, cd6: you won't be the last.
There's room for all kinds of spin in the next 48 hours; apart from the primary, there's going to be lots of fun to be had in the Texas caucus. Only my former host state could come up with that inspired piece of lunacy.
That said, decisive wins for Obama in Texas and Ohio would have been a coup de grace. A split, likely we go on. A Clinton win in the Texas and Ohio primaries, and the dice are rolled again.
Clinton needs to roll an 11 or 12 with two dice to be the nominee, but at this stage, not a 13.
Probably not. Apparently none of the big cities have reported yet so the gap is expected to narrow considerably, which is why they waited so long to call it even with such a big lead.
Obama picking up a substantial advantage in delegates in Texas, even before the caucus.
http://enr.sos.state.tx.us/enr/mar04_136_state.htm
Jesus God, why would any Democrat have trouble winning CA, NY, MA, and NJ in the fall? That is the lamest case Clinton can make.
Great! She can win the solidly blue states! What Democrat couldn't?
Obama can legitimately put some red/purple states in play. She simply can't. 100% of Republicans and probably a good third of Democrats can't stand her and her independent vote against John McCain would be exactly zero.
Go ahead, Democrats. Nominate Hillary and watch what happens.
Al,
That depends on what precincts have yet to report.
Not to mention that virtual polls show Obama beating McCain (while Hillary trails) in former red states like Colorado and Virginia -- often by considerable margins. If he's the nominee, the Dems actually have a path to victory that doesn't necessarily involve Ohio or Florida, which would be a major fucking relief. If it's Hillary, we have defensive battles in Oregon, Minnesota, Wisconsin, etc, and then an all or nothing campaign in Ohio (I don't think McCain loses in geriatric Florida, unless of course enough of his base dies between now and November).
Who wouldn't rather go for it in new reddish purple states than lay everything, once again, on the fairness and openness of the voting process in Cuyohoga county.
How in the world does beating another Democrat in the Democratic primary prove anything about how that candidate will fare in the general election?
BTW - it's early, so maybe the huge Clinton lead in Ohio will narrow. But if it doesn't, here are two initial thoughts. First - is this another garbage exit poll? I thought it was supposed to be close in Ohio. Second, I wonder if NAFTAgate really hurt Obama in Ohio.
There is no way Hillary can win more pledged delegates than Obama in this race, and she knows it. And the super-delegates are not going to side with someone who won fewer pledged delegates and lost 12 straight contests at one point.
The Clintons' hope is to damage Obama for November, so she can run again in 2012.
The cities in OH have barely reported, Al. The margin won't be 58-41 when it's over.
"And so far, it look like a blowout, no?"
Cuyahoga may tighten the overall margin somewhat, although I assume Stephanie Tubbs-Jones is going to be able to hold down Obama's margin there.
Texas. Texas. Texas.
If she can win Texas by a single popular vote, I like where she'll be sitting.
Hold tight, wait till the party's over,
Hold tight, we're in for nasty weather,
There. has. got. to. be. a. way.
Burning down the house!
Three losses for Obama (yes, I'm calling TX). Someone fetch me the blades.
Oh, and the provisional ballots could make a significant difference in the final ballot split (recall they ended up swinging Missouri despite the networks originally calling the state for Clinton).
If Hillary wins Texas, I wonder how soon the Republicans line of attack will change and we'll all get to hear more about Webb Hubbell and the rest of the 90's garbage than we cared to the first time around. Astonishingly, that nut has yet to be cracked the entire primary season.
Yep, I see, mousing over the counties on the NYTimes website, that Columbus and Akron are mostly in, but Cincinnati, Cleveland, Dayton, and Toledo aren't. Thanks.
"There is no way Hillary can win more pledged delegates than Obama in this race, and she knows it. And the super-delegates are not going to side with someone who won fewer pledged delegates and lost 12 straight contests at one point."
The superdelegates aren't going to side with the candidate who has lost the Democratic popular vote.
Obama may be the ideal candidate for some Bloomberg-Centrist Party, but this is the Democratic Party.
Obama is losing the Democratic vote in this nomination race. The superdelegates thus aren't his friend.
If she can win Texas by a single popular vote, I like where she'll be sitting.
What if she loses by a single popular vote? Then she's toast, or what?
It seems beneath someone of such obvious genius as yourself attach so much significance to such a tiny margin.
The provisionals aren't going to swing Ohio, but they could affect the margin. I still find it hard to believe the result could have been as high as a 15 point difference here, which would mean a few hundred thousand would have had to change their minds, or every single late decider would have had to break for someone who's been world famous for 16 years.
Obama's people are going to have to start being proactive now. They tried to kill the clock without having to go negative, and they let a lot go by unanswered. Now, to see if they can hit back without Hillary, Lorne Michaels, and the rest of her surrogates bitching about being mean to a girl.
I live in America's dumbest state.
The unmitigated bile that I've been spewing about O-[expletive]-hio over the last 48 hours would make your extremities curl and blacken.
I won't get into specifics, but may it be enough to say that the hardy-smarties who made it thru the Cumberland Gap tamed the frontier.
The rest stopped in Ohio, and there they stayed. Bleurgh.
If she can win Texas by a single popular vote, I like where she'll be sitting.
Which is probably the best news the Obama camp's heard all night, Petey.
That said, when someone actually does the math and Clinton bows out, Obama will owe your boy Edwards a year's worth of haircuts for staying in this thing just long enough to let him work up through the gears and into overdrive.
Who cares about Ohio? Critical Loving County, the least populous county in America, has gone for Obama by a whopping margin of 7-5... wooohooo
Hillary just declared that Ohio is a state that "knows how to pick a president."
The last president they picked was... George W Bush.
Great argument there Hill. Well, I'm convinced.
I wonder how soon the Republicans line of attack will change and we'll all get to hear more about Webb Hubbell and the rest of the 90's garbage
Using the Clinton logic, Hillary's scandals should be fair game for Obama because the Republicans are going to bring all that stuff up, anyway. In fact, by going negative on Clinton, Obama would be doing Hillary a big favor by toughening her up. Unfortunately for the Obama campaign, they can't go negative without tarnishing their own image. I think Clinton's negative attacks on Obama are a big part of the reason she's reversed her slide.
Petey, why is this difficult for you? Do you honestly think Obama will not pull in the vast majority of Democrats in November?
What's more plausible, Independents breaking for a moderate like McCain over Hillary, or Democrats going for McCain over Obama? Come on dude.
Obama is losing the Democratic vote in this nomination race. The superdelegates thus aren't his friend.
Where'd you pull that from? He's winning in delegates, which is what counts. He's winning in the over all popular vote, he's won more states, he's won more caucuses and he's won more primaries. I fail to see how he is "losing the Democratic vote".
Do registered Democrats vote more for Hillary? Yes. But in the general election you can vote for whomever you want. Obama beats Hillary when all registered voters are combined. Considering he lost to her in Ohio but still got more votes than McCain, by 150,000 and counting, I'd say it looks good for him all around.
Ohio will tighten up a bit as Cleveland and Cincinnati come in. I'd guess 55-45 as the final margin.
Texas really is too close to call. There are a lot of precincts yet to report from the Dallas and Houston areas, and a lot of precincts coming in late from El Paso and the Hillary-friendly border region. I'd still bet on a very narrow Obama victory, but probably by no more than 2%.
The Obama inevitability meme was always really stupid. He won a bunch of caucus states through good organizing, so what. He has to take some big, impressive primaries to match up with Hillary. Screw the pledged delegate count. It's effectively a dead heat right now if Hillary takes Texas -- she'll have taken NY, California, Texas, Ohio, Massachusetts, a couple of southern states, on and on it goes. Then if she adds Pennsylvania to that she can make a good argument for superdelegates. Man, this will be close.
NY, California, and Massachusetts will go Democrat if the nominee is Paris Hilton's dog.
Why do people keep talking about winning those states as being impressive? They probably matter least in terms of predicting November.
Again, the problem with the superdelegate theories of people like Petey is that unless Clinton significantly closes the pledged delegate gap, a narrow win for Clinton among the superdelegates won't be enough. She'll have to win overwhelming support among the superdelegates, and it is highly unlikely the uncommitted superdelegates were just waiting for Clinton to win some states, since she already did that.
Incidentally, people like Petey also seem to be forgetting the superdelegates are not just responsible to registered Democrats in their "day jobs". For example, many are elected officials who have to be concerned with their support among the general electorate. Similarly, many are unelected party officials who are nonetheless responsible for helping Democrats win in their jurisdiction. Indeed, many were involved in setting up the various open primaries and caucuses as party-building exercises and to help them choose better general election candidates. So, all these superdelegates probably are not going to be receptive to the idea that on reflection, only registered Democrats count when it comes to choosing a nominee.
"He has to take some big, impressive primaries to match up with Hillary. Screw the pledged delegate count."
Actually, it has been the Clinton campaign that has reminded us all over the past eight weeks that this is really a race about delegates.
"He won a bunch of caucus states through good organizing, so what."
Winning delegates was a part of both campaigns' strategy.
Right now, according to Kos, Obama is leading in delegates in Ohio. As the big cities come in with his votes, the margin will narrow. And who knows...it may be another Missouri.
As for Texas, right now there are a lot of Obama-friendly cities that have yet to report.
Remember, the trend is that the big cities report last, and those favor Obama.
"Petey, why is this difficult for you?"
Given the way the race is turning, I think it might be more appropriate if I were to ask why watching Clinton become the nominee is so difficult for you?
-----
As for me, I oppose Obama because Obama opposes universal healthcare.
Show me a candidate who supports free trade and opposes social spending, and I'll show you a candidate who ain't a real Democrat.
Remember the good old days, when everyone agreed that she had to win both by substantial margins?
Obama's going to win Texas. All the cities except San Antonio and El Paso went for him by 60-35 margins, and most of those have only 35% or less of their delegate count in. As those big numbers pour in, they're going to tilt the state for Obama.
It's effectively a dead heat right now if Hillary takes Texas
Maybe you're new to this whole primary thing, mq, but this is not the general, where you count states in a winner take all. Proportional means that nothing much happens in Texas tonight, unless their byzantine allocation system throws an extra 10 delegates Obama's way.
A dead heat is when competitors are tied.
Try to keep up.
Clinton will still need a vast majority of the so-far-undeclared superdelegates to win this thing. Out of the 350 or so, she'll probably need about 230 or 240.
Do we really believe that 2/3 of them will choose to overturn the pledged delegates? Seems pretty implausible to me. Politicians in general aren't a tribe known for their courage or iconoclasm.
Clinton and many of her most ardent supporters still seem stuck in that magical thinking stage of development, in which saying a thing often enough makes it so. Unfortunately for them, it doesn't. In the end, Obama will have a triple digit pledged delegate advantage. That won't be overturned.
Show me a candidate who supports free trade and opposes social spending, and I'll show you a candidate who ain't a real Democrat.
Bill Clinton? Oh, also Hillary Clinton and John Edwards before they began running for President?
The Obama inevitability meme was always really stupid. He won a bunch of caucus states through good organizing, so what. He has to take some big, impressive primaries to match up with Hillary
Gee where to begin. The inevitability meme was about Hillary. As of 2 weeks ago she was still ahead in the polls in both OH and TX as of 2 days ago she was still ahead in the polls in OH and as of 2pm this afternoon she was still ahead in the polls in OH.
He didn't just win caucuses, he won the majority of primaries up through today, and after today they'll most likely be tied in primary wins where as she as was only a single caucus, to his 11 or 12.
So apparently he has to win some "big" states now? Say, like IL, WA, MO, VA, and GA?
Petey's belief that Hillary will bring about universal health care is the triumph of hope over experience.
Hillary is winning Ted Strickland's old congressional district, aka greater West Virginia, by about a 3-1 margin. A lot of that is residual respect for Strickland, but Obama would have to win a certain number of those voters back to have any chance in November. With all the slime out there and the unbelievable staying power of the Muslim stuff...I dunno. Still, if I let people like the 60 Minutes idiot ("I heard he's a Muslim who doesn't know the national anthem") from the other night scare me into not voting for Obama, I might as well become a Republican.
There are literally no votes in from Cuyahoga, which explains why the networks were so slow to call for Clinton.
I wouldn't be surprised by a 52/53% to 48/47% margin. I was surprised by the early call for Clinton before the big population centers came in.
I'm genuinely interested in what posters think the "tipping point" should be for the superdelegates. Is it a lead of 1 pledged delegate? 10? 50? 200 delegates? What's the margin in pledged delegates with which candidate A can legitimately say to the superdelegates "you do not get to exercise your vote as a convention delegate. I've won."
"Incidentally, people like Petey also seem to be forgetting the superdelegates are not just responsible to registered Democrats"
If the superdelegates sell out the Party, the Obama putsch can definitely succeed no matter what happens in coming contests. I don't think a nomination won against the will of the Party's voters would be worth very much, however.
And frankly, I don't think the superdelegates will sell out the Party. They know which side of the bread the butter is on.
Dear Independent Voter In My Jurisdiction.
I realize that Democratic candidates need your support to win elections in my jurisdiction. I also realize that we held an open primary/caucus in our state, and you were invited to participate. But on further reflection, go f%^& yourself.
Sincerely yours,
A Superdelegate
Can I ask why there is such bitterness here, especially towards Clinton? And why are people acting like she has no reason to be in the race? She may be behind, but she's not as far behind as Huckabee was before McCain won it. Even if it would be very hard, if impossible for her to catch up, she can still win enough to swing the votes of some super delegates. The reasoning was that she needed big wins to stop his momentum. She got that in Ohio, and even if she only wins the popular vote in Texas, she'll have done what she needed to do.
Who attacks their opponent in their acceptance speech? Who congratulates the Republican nominee before they congratulate their Democratic opponent? Who's voters are so bereft of ideas that they have to co-opt Obama's "yes we can" into "yes she will"
If that doesnt say it all...for Obama, its about all of us. For Clinton, its all about her.
NY and CA are going Dem no matter what. MA and and NJ in all likelihood as well.
Congrats Hillary Clinton, you exploited your gender and Senator Obama's race. Books will be written about this campaign. I'll read the book they write about Obama. I'll use the book about Clinton as a doorstop.
the Obama putsch
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
You're funny.
Obama is losing the Democratic vote in this nomination race. The superdelegates thus aren't his friend.
Hard to win the Democratic primary by losing it. Not sure what this spin is suppose to mean. Delegates are not proportional to population but to the number of people that voted for Kerry. So, if one candidate gets the most delegates, he would be carrying the most Kerry voters. If you are claiming a lot of people are registered Dem but voted for Nader or Bush, and Hillary is getting all of them, well good for her. But if they didn't vote for Kerry in 2004, are they really Democrats?
Hillary can't win, she can only lose the election for the Dems. The math doesn't lie.
This idea that Clinton has some proven advantage among registered Democrats is more wishful thinking from the Clinton people. It's based on exit polls (and we know those aren't reliable) and counting Michigan and Florida...in other words, unproven nonsense.
Here's what I don't get about Petey's contention that the Democratic Party should only be looking at the votes of Democrats.
The Democratic Party could have chosen to do that, simply by declaring the primaries closed. It's a logicial position - that the party's nominee should be chosen by registered members of the party. But the party determined to choose their nominee differently. The party chose in most states to permit the votes of independents and Republicans who decided that they wanted Obama or Clinton as the nominee. So why shouldn't those persons' votes count just as much as registered Democrats?
Petey has every right to claim that it is registered Democrats who should have the sole say as to who is the nominee. But the time for him to make that claim was when the state parties were choosing whether to have a closed or an open primary. To state now, after the states have already chosen an open primary, that the party should be run as if it had closed primaries is just sour grapes.
"Who attacks their opponent in their acceptance speech? Who congratulates the Republican nominee before they congratulate their Democratic opponent"
It was all about positioning her candidacy against McCain's for the general election. If this is your biggest criticism against her, then you've got nothing.
This campaign is basically going to go very negative. It looked like Obama was running a campaign of hope. But as the Bauer call on the Clinton campaign's conference call earlier today suggests, both camps are going to go all out for the next seven weeks.
The whole rationale behind Obama was that he was the candidate who could heal a country. The fact that he can't heal his own party will be problematic. In addition, swathes of the Democratic Party will not vote for a black man. That's going to be even more of a problem in the general.
With Clinton picking up Ohio by a significant margin, RI, and Texas (where she was supposedly out), it'd be in the Party's best interests to coalesce behind her, the one candidate who is viable against McCain.
The whole notion that she is "vetted" is real. As soon as Obama gets bloodied a bit (Rezko), the air goes out.
Anyway, the next seven weeks is going to be great as all of these states - especially PA with its large working class "Reagan" Democrat constituency - go Clinton.
If you're a Clinton supporter, you have to be thrilled. Obama, not so much.
Superdelegates going with the pledged delegates would be selling out the party? Oh, how sad Petey has become.
"I'm genuinely interested in what posters think the "tipping point" should be for the superdelegates."
Whoever wins the majority of popular votes from Democrats should take the superdelegates.
How does Clinton get to dictate the rules like this? Obama wins huge victories in state after state, opens up a big lead in pledged delegates, and somehow Clinton nonetheless gets everyone to agree that what matters are the states in which she has inherent demographic advantages. Seriously, her people keep on saying "On to Pennsylvania . . ." There are two states between now and Pennsylvania. No mention of them. After Pennsylvania, it is on to West Virginia and Kentucky. No mention of Oregon, North Carolina, Montana, North Dakota . . . Seriously, why does she get to do this? It's madness.
Show me a candidate who supports free trade and opposes social spending, and I'll show you a candidate who ain't a real Democrat.
Sounds like a Clinton to me.
Whoever wins the majority of popular votes from Democrats should take the superdelegates.
1) It is not possible to determine who has won the majority of popular votes from previously registered Democrats. Sorry, extrapolations based on exit polls just aren't reliable.
2) So, now superdelegates shouldn't be independent, after all? They should act in lockstep according to some arbitrary measure neither of the candidates was aiming for. That makes no sense, at all.
How in god's name could you claim 100% that Clinton has won the True Democrat (TM) vote based on EXIT POLLS!!!
More importantly, what Obama is doing- and Clinton has no chance of doing- is expanding the base. Millions of kids and former independents are now Democrats because of him. We've seen it time and time again.
"Given the way the race is turning, I think it might be more appropriate if I were to ask why watching Clinton become the nominee is so difficult for you?"
Given the way the race is turning? Petey - Clinton had a 20 point lead just a few weeks ago. It's hovering around 15. Most think it will narrow to 10 or below once the bigger cities report.
Likewise, she's not going to win Texas. Let me repeat - not going to win Texas. Again, bigger cities, not reporting, nearly uniformly Obama, etc.
The race isn't "turning." Its just that both candidates are competing. Hillary essentially sat out a number of primaries/caucuses, which allowed Obama to establish a hefty delegate lead. Now she's actually contesting some primaries, and she's poised to win two, one of which being Ohio which is a prize, no doubt. Obama's "momentum" was largely a result of Clinton's absence from the post-Super Tuesday primaries. What we're seeing is that, when both candidates show up, its a close race.
But... she's still down in delegates. Mainly because of the aforementioned decision to ignore all those smaller states.
Something else: Regardless of this "registered Democrats being the true bellweather for superdelegates" crap that's being pushed, the Democratic Party chose to conduct its candidate selection procedure this way, and they're going to be bound by it. If all that mattered were "registered Democrats" then the primaries would be structured across the board such that only those persons could vote. That's not the way its done, largely because the key component of the electorate that a Democratic candidate must court in the general is the block of non-registered voters, and it would make little to no sense to not reward a candidate who could motivate these voters at the primary level.
"Given the way the race is turning, I think it might be more appropriate if I were to ask why watching Clinton become the nominee is so difficult for you?"
Given the way the race is turning? Petey - Clinton had a 20 point lead just a few weeks ago. It's hovering around 15. Most think it will narrow to 10 or below once the bigger cities report.
Likewise, she's not going to win Texas. Let me repeat - not going to win Texas. Again, bigger cities, not reporting, nearly uniformly Obama, etc.
The race isn't "turning." Its just that both candidates are competing. Hillary essentially sat out a number of primaries/caucuses, which allowed Obama to establish a hefty delegate lead. Now she's actually contesting some primaries, and she's poised to win two, one of which being Ohio which is a prize, no doubt. Obama's "momentum" was largely a result of Clinton's absence from the post-Super Tuesday primaries. What we're seeing is that, when both candidates show up, its a close race.
But... she's still down in delegates. Mainly because of the aforementioned decision to ignore all those smaller states.
Something else: Regardless of this "registered Democrats being the true bellweather for superdelegates" crap that's being pushed, the Democratic Party chose to conduct its candidate selection procedure this way, and they're going to be bound by it. If all that mattered were "registered Democrats" then the primaries would be structured across the board such that only those persons could vote. That's not the way its done, largely because the key component of the electorate that a Democratic candidate must court in the general is the block of non-registered voters, and it would make little to no sense to not reward a candidate who could motivate these voters at the primary level.
Whoever wins the majority of popular votes from Democrats should take the superdelegates.
Where would you get that count from?
"Senator McCain has a lifetime of experience he would bring to the White House" - Hillary Clinton, McCain campaign commercial, October 2008
Good work, Hillary. Congratulations.
On the superdelegate tipping point, Petey, we know your (nonsensical) opinion. If only Democrats voted in the general election, too, what a wonderful republic we would have!
A more reasonable answer, I'd say, is somewhere under 100 delegates. If Obama has a pledged lead of +100, it's going to be damned hard for superdelegates to overrule the voters. Anything under 100 is dicey, but I don't think Hillary will be able to turn enough to win unless the number is at around 50 or so...
pjs,
Actually, there is no evidence anyone is buying that spin except diehard Clinton supporters and the media, both groups with a vested interest in seeing Clinton continue to campaign regardless of whether she really does have a plausible path to the nomination.
"It was all about positioning her candidacy against McCain's for the general election. If this is your biggest criticism against her, then you've got nothing."
it actually isn't my biggest criticism about her. There isnt enough room on this blog for my biggest criticism of her.
What it is, actually...is a matter of class. Something Senator Clinton has proven, time and time again, that she doesn't have.
Here is Petey declaring exit polls to be "famously wrong fucking everywhere," discounting their value as predictive and descriptive based on insignificant sample sizes.
Here is Petey declaring that the actual delegates allocated through winning the elective contests set up and approved by the party are irrelevant; we should actually be ruled by... the exit polls.
It'd be ridiculous if it weren't so transparently sad.
"Seriously, why does she get to do this? It's madness."
I don't understand why this bothers you so much. It's pure spin in order to boost fund raising and keep the spirits of her supporters alive. She gets to do this--gets to spin--because she has the ability to speak. You don't have to accept it; from the looks of it, you don't, and neither do most people.
"Senator McCain has a lifetime of experience he would bring to the White House" - Hillary Clinton, McCain campaign commercial, October 2008
Good work, Hillary. Congratulations.
The worst part of that is, McCain can use that regardless of who the Democratic nominee is.
"What it is, actually...is a matter of class. Something Senator Clinton has proven, time and time again, that she doesn't have."
I probably shouldn't ask, because we aren't likely to agree, but why do you think she has no class?
"The Democratic Party could have chosen to do that, simply by declaring the primaries closed"
I'd support that.
But instead we have a hybrid system with many open primaries, and the superdelegates acting as a backstop to keep a candidate from trying to game the system by seeking independent votes by bashing Democratic policy goals.
The superdelegates are there precisely to stop a Bloomberg or Obama from trying to hijack the Party. That was the whole purpose behind the design.
And that's why Obama's bashing of universal healthcare to gain the support of General Electric is going to backfire on him.
The whole rationale behind Obama was that he was the candidate who could heal a country.
No, his campaign was about running a different style of gov't, it was not about healing the divide but about effective governing incorporating as many people as possible.
With Clinton picking up Ohio by a significant margin, RI, and Texas (where she was supposedly out),
The avg. of the TX polls was within the margin of error and Obama had only taken the lead in those in the last few days. The OH lead by Clinton still does not count one of the largest Obama regions, though she will undoubtedly win that state, I'm not sure her win will be that much more significant than most though.
The whole notion that she is "vetted" is real. As soon as Obama gets bloodied a bit (Rezko), the air goes out.
The Rezko storyline has been out there for months on end yet he still won every race in the past month. It's also now been debunked.
If you're a Clinton supporter, you have to be thrilled. Obama, not so much.
Obama still has a huge lead both in the momentum (he's still winning states), and the delegate count so I'd say if you're a Clinton supporter instead of being thrilled you should get to work if you think she still has a chance.
Petey has an interesting view of history. In a nutshell, the Democrats added the superdelegates because they didn't like the selection of McGovern and Carter. Apparently in Petey's view, those guys were just to centrist for the Party.
that's why Obama's bashing of universal healthcare to gain the support of General Electric is going to backfire on him.
It's amazing how someone so full of crap -- Petey -- can dominate the discussion on an otherwise intelligent site just through sheer relentlessness and provocative outrageousness.
Obama has his own universal healthcare plan, just one that does not involve mandates. Healthcare will be universally available to everyone, just not universally forced on any adult. Hillary's plan, on the other hand, involves forcing everyone to buy private insurance.
The entire Clinton spin in re: Kansas, Idaho, etc. has been "We're not going to win those anyway." As if Obama would lose CA, MA, NY, etc.
So how the fuck can she try to spin Texas?
Petey ain't debating, he's spinning. I just looked at the map, Obama will win Tex -- only 14% of harris county has been counted, barely over 50% counted in dallas co., and less than 40% been counted in tarrant.
Of course, I could be wrong ;-)
"Likewise, she's not going to win Texas. Let me repeat - not going to win Texas. Again, bigger cities, not reporting, nearly uniformly Obama, etc."
I wouldn't be too sure. Judging by the map at CNN.com, many of the late-reporting precincts are located in Houston and Dallas, but also in El Paso and other counties along the border.
This is going to be VERY close.
"Here is Petey declaring exit polls to be "famously wrong fucking everywhere," discounting their value as predictive and descriptive based on insignificant sample sizes. Here is Petey declaring that the actual delegates allocated through winning the elective contests set up and approved by the party are irrelevant; we should actually be ruled by... the exit polls."
Uncorrected exit polls (the kind you get before the polls close) are indeed "famously wrong fucking everywhere".
However, corrected exit polls, which you get the morning after an election, are corrected by comparing the fine grained results to the fine grained actual ballot results, which is a technique that makes them quite reliable for subgroup measuring.
Corrected exit polls are not precise to the vote among subgroups, but they're pretty damn close.
Hope that clears it up for you, should you be interested.
I'm half convinced the original Petey sold the name to General Electric, and they are now just using it to build brand awareness.
I'm more than half convinced that he's Mark Penn, who also happens to be Tim K.
But instead we have a hybrid system with many open primaries, and the superdelegates acting as a backstop to keep a candidate from trying to game the system by seeking independent votes by bashing Democratic policy goals.
Considering that independent voters overwhelmingly support Democratic policy goals (INCLUDING UNIVERSAL HEALTHCARE), such a strategy would be foolhardy.
"Petey has an interesting view of history. In a nutshell, the Democrats added the superdelegates because they didn't like the selection of McGovern and Carter. Apparently in Petey's view, those guys were just to centrist for the Party."
The superdelegates were a specific reaction to Carter, who like Obama, tried to run a primary campaign seeking independent votes over Democratic votes.
Thus superdelegates were introduced to keep future candidates from pursuing that particular course and succeeding.
Petey, you don't happen to be from Ohio, do you?
OBAMA Supporters:
Why don't you put your money with your chosen candidate? Take all of your savings and give it away - join in Obama's "Global Poverty Act".
If you agree with HIM - why not get started right away??
Oh, please, Obama, tax us more to give it away! Then start adding up the deficit.
0.7 of the gross national product, 850 billion over 10 years. Sounds like Obama is playing for the other team!!!
What a way to encourage prosperity - NOT - if the more you make, the more you pay. What an incentive!
But instead we have a hybrid system with many open primaries, and the superdelegates acting as a backstop to keep a candidate from trying to game the system by seeking independent votes by bashing Democratic policy goals.
No, I don't think that could possibly be the reason for the superdelegates. Because, as I pointed out, there is a much easier solution to prevent a candidate "from trying to game the system by seeking independent votes by bashing Democratic policy goals": simply closing the primaries. The party chose not to do that.
That indicates to me that the party is and has been perfectly open to a candidate winning the nomination on the backs of independents.
If you're a Clinton voter, I'd like to know how she proposes less taxes.
If you're a McCain voter, I'd like to know how he plans to fund a 10,000 year war while cutting taxes on the richest people in the country.
Dear Independent Voter in My Jurisdiction,
As a followup to my previous letter, let me make it clear that this is all your fault. We presented you with a candidate who is only popular with registered Democrats, but for some reason you decided not to vote for her. So, it is really not our fault that I am telling you to go f%^& yourself. Please keep that in mind the next time you vote, such as in the upcoming general election, by which point I am sure you will have come to see the error of your ways.
Sincerely yours,
A Superdelegate
"I'm more than half convinced that he's Mark Penn"
I dislike Mark Penn quite a bit. I've actually got some not insignificant problems with the Clinton campaign, but politics often forces one to choose the lesser of two evils. And with Obama's hostility to Democratic economic programs, that's Clinton.
"I'm half convinced the original Petey sold the name to General Electric, and they are now just using it to build brand awareness."
This one, I like. Let me audition:
Vote Obama. Build GE nuclear power plants. Vote Obama. Defeat universal healthcare and buy GE medical equipment. Vote Obama. Privatize Social Security and buy GE financial services.
Nah. It doesn't feel right.
although I assume Stephanie Tubbs-Jones is going to be able to hold down Obama's margin there.
Seriously? Obama won 90% of the Black vote in Ohio, per exit polls. Stephanie Tubbs Jones is completely irrelevant.
Beyond that, fuck Petey.
The superdelegates are there precisely to stop a Bloomberg or Obama from trying to hijack the Party.
Hijack the party to where? Cuba? Obama's a democrat and he's running in the democratic primary. God, if you don't like his policies I can only imagine what you'd be thinking if one of the blue dogs was running.
The superdelegates are there precisely to stop a Bloomberg or Obama from trying to hijack the Party.
Hijack the party to where? Cuba? Obama's a democrat and he's running in the democratic primary. God, if you don't like his policies I can only imagine what you'd be thinking if one of the blue dogs was running.
Petey, it's still educated guesswork to say how many votes were cast for which candidate by which type of voter.
Ultimately, the candidate who can persuade the greatest number of delegates at the convention to vote for them wins. We didn't know we'd be at this point two months ago, as Iowa was voting: there have been twists and turns since then, and the convention is in August, nearly six months away.
By that time, all kinds of nasty stuff may have dropped on peoples' heads as the recession hits, and the "Surge" will be history. Plus we'll have had the additional results from the campaigns.
This is the tightest primary contest at least since Ford-Reagan 1976. It also coincides with the greatest enthusiasm for Democratic candidates I can remember, and I'm 48.
Whatever happened to the Ron Paul rEVOLution?
"That indicates to me that the party is and has been perfectly open to a candidate winning the nomination on the backs of independents."
See my followup comment upthread. If you read up on the history of this, the superdelegates were a specific reaction to Carter winning the nomination on the backs of independents.
I think the Party likes independents voting in Democratic primaries for obvious reasons. But they don't want to hand the keys to the Party over to independent voters for equally obvious reasons.
"Hijack the party to where?"
Harry & Louise-land.
Something I'm looking forward to is, if Obama gets the nomination, the contortions Petey will go through to try to extricate himself from the corner he's backed himself into.
Who attacks their opponent in their acceptance speech? Who congratulates the Republican nominee before they congratulate their Democratic opponent?
A class act, isn't she.
Even though I was an Edwards supporter, it was nice consolation that Edwards' loss caused Petey to suffer. Now that I'm an Obama supporter, Petey's suffering in the face of a Hillary loss will be all the sweeter, particularly since the superdelegates may break for Obama rather that Hillary.
Something I'm looking forward to is, if Obama gets the nomination, the contortions Petey will go through to try to extricate himself from the corner he's backed himself into.
What contortions? What corner? According to Petey, Obama wants to build nuke reactors; but according to McCain, McCain wants to bomb them (in Iran). Not exactly a difficult decision in the voting booth.
What contortions? What corner? According to Petey, Obama wants to build nuke reactors; but according to McCain, McCain wants to bomb them (in Iran). Not exactly a difficult decision in the voting booth.
The contortions he'll have to go through to extricate himself from the position that Obama is the second coming of Ronald Reagan crossed with Newt Gingrich.
Petey:
The superdelegates were a specific reaction to Carter, who like Obama, tried to run a primary campaign seeking independent votes over Democratic votes.
Thus superdelegates were introduced to keep future candidates from pursuing that particular course and succeeding.
That's wrong. He's seeking Democratic and Independent votes. (And he has a nice lead in pledged delegates). Even if he wins Texas, it looks like Clinton will stay in the race and the party "elders" won't be able to get her to cease and desist.
The Clinton campaign will falsely "hope" for a miracle, but I don't see the superdelegates deciding it for her if she doesn't have the numbers. They're politicians, the money - in smaller donatations - is going to Obama. Obama is generating turnout and getting the votes. His record is liberal, not "Bloombergian centrist" as Petey and Krugman bizarrely accuse. (He was a community organizer, Bloomberg's a media mogul, etc.)
It's funny to me. Obama has an 11 contest winning streak, some by big margins, and the Clinton campaign proclaims Texas, Ohio and Pennsylvania as the firewall states where she has to win big in all of them in order to stay in. And as time goes by, the goal posts are moved.
Right, the Party likes independent voters participating in the nomination process. The Party just doesn't want those independent voters to think their participation could actually make a difference. I mean, it is almost like they thought that when the Party let them vote, that meant their votes would actually be counted just like real people's votes. How amusing.
But they don't want to hand the keys to the Party over to independent voters for equally obvious reasons.
Yeah... those independent voters almost derailed the nomination of... Walter Mondale!
In an era in which open primaries are the norm and in which registering as independent is almost the default choice of new voters (even those who loyally vote Democratic all the time), what we're seeing is that each and every candidate is always going to need the support of independents to run credibly in a primary.
"The contortions he'll have to go through to extricate himself from the position that Obama is the second coming of Ronald Reagan crossed with Newt Gingrich."
No. More like Bloomberg crossed with Schwarzenegger.
The contortions he'll have to go through to extricate himself from the position that Obama is the second coming of Ronald Reagan crossed with Newt Gingrich.
That's still a selling point when you're up against John 'nuke the entire site from orbit' McCain.
Bloomberg's a media mogul,
Um, in a way, I guess.
No. More like Bloomberg crossed with Schwarzenegger.
Are you limbering up?
Look, the Petey worldview is simple. Edwards was all things good. Obama beat Edwards, and consequently Obama became all things evil. Therefore, anyone who is trying to beat Obama is now all things good. So, Clinton is now all things good. In due course, McCain will also become all things good.
I don't see what is so hard for people to understand.
I'll tell you one thing. I'm not a huge fan of any of the three. But I'll pull the lever for Obama if I get the chance. However, if the Clinton creature gets the nomination somehow, I will either vote for a third party candidate, or even actively vote for McCain, despite the fact that he is an insane warmonger.
I can't really think of any living person of any nation who, as Clinton's opponent, could convince me to vote for Clinton. Maybe Stalin returned from the dead. Maybe.
And I'll tell you another thing, any small lingering affection I felt for Bill Clinton is gone. He is a rapist war criminal scum, and I hope he spends eternity in hell with his wife, both George Bushes, and Dick Cheney.
NBC: Clinton wins Texas.
CNN: Clinton wins Texas.
"Look, the Petey worldview is simple. Edwards was all things good. Obama beat Edwards, and consequently Obama became all things evil."
Clinton and Obama both beat Edwards. Why do you think I went to Clinton instead of to Obama?
You don't suppose it might have something to do with their healthcare and other economic policies?
Vote Obama. Privatize Social Security and buy GE financial services.
I'll file this one right after "Mavs over Warriors" in my Petey Prognostication file.
In addition, swathes of the Democratic Party will not vote for a black man. That's going to be even more of a problem in the general.
Ah yes, the Rendell strategy. It's not enough to repeatedly insult Obama's voters, the Clintonites now think it's a good long term strategy to tell the party's most loyal demographic that too bad, but your role is just to provide the votes--don't think you can actually run for anything yourselves.
No Petey, I think you are rationalizing your dislike of the person who beat the person you originally supported, and confidently predicted was going to win.
And you and I both know it was Obama who beat Edwards, not Clinton. Quite literally, in fact: Edwards actually beat Clinton in Iowa, but it was losing to Obama in Iowa that effectively knocked Edwards out of the race. If instead Edwards had beaten Obama (and Clinton) in Iowa, he might well have ended up in the final two instead of Obama.
And beating Edwards in Iowa despite your very confident predictions to the contrary is simply an unforgivable sin in Petey-world.
Is it really totally up to "The Party" whether primaries are open or closed? In lots of states -- New Hampshire comes to mind -- the people and the legislature want open primaries, and "The Party" would have a hell of a time getting rid of them. California voters approved an open primary and it got tied up in court for years, eventually the Dems gave in but the Rs never did. Yeah, you could refuse to seat delegates from states with open primaries, but that's a big fat can of worms, given how many states have open primaries. I hate to break it to you, Petey, but registered Democrats aren't the only people who have a legitimate interest in who the Democratic Party nominates. Primary elections are publicly funded and they decide matters of great public concern. They should be open to any eligible voters who want to vote in them.
But anyway, whether they should be open or not, they are in a lot of states. So Petey can cry about it, but I got to vote for Obama, and my vote counted just as much as his. I'd say it counted just as much as anybody's, but of course that's not true, since there are these superdelegate assholes out there.
Killjoy, go easy on Petey. The only thing that would make this comparable to him saying the Warriors had no chance to beat the Mavs (when the Warriors were up 2-0 or something) would be if he were insisting John Edwards was going to win.
"And you and I both know it was Obama who beat Edwards, not Clinton"
We watched very different nomination races. Edwards needed to come out of the early states ahead of Clinton, not Obama.
And Team Clinton was the one who went after Edwards, in ways both legitimate and illegitimate: Team Clinton stole Edwards' best issue when they xeroxed his healthcare plan, and Team Clinton planted the National Enquirer 'love child' story to try to slime Edwards.
My bitterness towards the Clinton campaign over the Edwards defeat is far higher than my bitterness towards the Obama campaign, which was mostly a bystander in my mind.
But when Edwards dropped out and the dust settled, Clinton was out there pushing Edwards healthcare plan with all her might, and Obama was out trashing Edwards healthcare plan with all his might.
-----
I know that as an Obama supporter, you think this race is all about personalities, and thus you can't understand someone basing their decisions on policy. But do try to wrap your mind around the concept.
"I hate to break it to you, Petey, but registered Democrats aren't the only people who have a legitimate interest in who the Democratic Party nominates."
You may think whatever you like, too many steves, but the Democratic Party is still going to determine our nominee.
And they're going to weigh the will of Democrats over the will of independents like you.
If you don't like it, start up your own party.
A week ago, it was clear that Clinton needed 15-20 point leads in Texas, Ohio, and Pennsylvania in order to close he gap in pledged delegates. Nothing about the numbers has changed.
If the superdelegates agree with Petey, that a vote for Obama is a betrayal of the sacred trust of the Democratic party, then Clinton will win. If not, then they are more likely to echo the outcome of the primaries, so Obama will win.
My prediction:
In 6 months, Petey will be waving his hand-crafted "Nader" sign all by himself, and Obama will be the nominee.
Look, I really don't care who gets nominated. They both have strengths and weaknesses, and are both far better than McCain. But Obama's internet supporters are maximally obnoxious and annoying. Shocked -- shocked! -- that anyone would dare to question their princeling.
It's just ridiculous to say this race is over and Clinton somehow has no chance. If she takes Pennsylvania and North Carolina, and gets Michigan and Florida either through a do-over or seating her delegates, then she'll have won 8 of the 10 most populous states, 11 out of the top 15. Micromanaging the caucus system to maximize all your pledged extra delegates in Vermont and South Dakota or whatever is an admirable organizational feat, but it is not going to let Obama shrug that off.
Obama needs to win some major states here, and he needs to show that he can regain momentum. The last week was just the merest shadow of the roughing up he is going to get, and his gain in the polls came to a dead halt over the last four or five days.
I don't care if Hillary beats Obama and then John McCain is the next president and Huckabee is his VP. As long as the Warriors make the playoffs and the Nuggets don't, I win.
So what you're saying, too many steves, is that you don't care about how the country fares. Why don't we ask our old friend Juvenal how that worked:
iam pridem, ex quo suffragia nulli
uendimus, effudit curas; nam qui dabat olim
imperium, fasces, legiones, omnia, nunc se
continet atque duas tantum res anxius optat,
panem et circenses
Enjoy your bread and circuses, dude.
Tax returns. Now!
"I don't care if Hillary beats Obama ... As long as the Warriors make the playoffs and the Nuggets don't, I win."
A fair trade. Hillary Clinton for President and Baron Davis for MVP.
"A fair trade. Hillary Clinton for President and Baron Davis for MVP."
That would be fine by me.
By the way, isn't it obvious that LeBron's better than Kobe?
OK, goodnight, kids.
DON'T EVER LINK Hillary and the Warriors again. As a proud San Franciscan and Warriors fan living in the East Bay, be reminded that the best part of California (Bay Area) voted overwhelmingly for Barry O. It's the hicktards from Redding who waddled out of their methlabs and biker bars to vote for Cankles McPantsuit.
WARRIORS 135-118 HAWKS
OBAMA 1,451-1,365 CLINTON entering the 4th Quarter
Baron/Barack for 3!
mq,
First, the big states argument simply makes no sense. Take, for example, Minnesota and Wisconsin, which Obama both won. Together they would be a big state, and also a crucial swing state I might add (Kerry barely won them). But apart, they are "merely" two medium sized states. The big states argument basically completely ignores Minnesota and Wisconsin, and I really can ascertain no logical reason to do something like that.
We could continue in this same way to look at Oregon and Washington, or Maryland and Virginia, or Iowa and Missouri, or Colorado and Kansas. For that matter, there is no reason we have to stick to two states at a time, or to contiguous states. The basic point is that there is simply no logical reason to restrict electoral calculus to big states, when several smaller states can be as important as a single big state.
Second, you are giving Clinton wins in NC and MI (in a new contest), and I think those are both highly suspect predictions.
fine, if Clinton loses NC and MI then she doesn't get the nomination. What I'm saying -- that if Hillary wins out she has an excellent shot at the nomination -- is much more rational than the ridiculous "11 straight states sometime in February!" argument from Obama supporters.
A significant reason Obama takes smaller states is that many have a less democratic system for choosing delegates that is more manipulable by activists.
The two candidates should announce now that the person who takes the most total votes over the entire process wins.
Comments closed March 18, 2008.
| 
Heads in the Sand
I live in America's dumbest state.
I suppose the good news is that it looks like Clinton's "firewall night" isn't going to net her any delegates, which prompts the question of exactly how she's supposed to catch up.
Posted by ChuckE | March 4, 2008 11:00 PM