Texas Math

Chuck Todd is predicting a net win of delegates for Obama in Texas, possibly a net win large enough to overcome Clinton's net delegate pickup in Ohio. If that's even close to correct, then the bottom line is that it continues to be unclear how Clinton can actually win barring some catastrophic Obama meltdown.

UPDATE: Texas officially gets called for Clinton, raising the question of whether Todd's delegate calculus is right. Everyone on TV says it's onward to Pennsylvania, though it still seems that Clinton is drawing dead.

Comments

I'm not really a boxing fan, this analogy might not be right-on, but it feels right to me: This is the 8th round of a 12 round fight, and Hillary just got up off the canvas, after being knocked down. She's back on her feet again, but she's so far behind on the judges' cards that if Obama just stays on his feet until the end of the fight, he wins. Hillary still has to knock him out to win, and there's not really a way for her to do it electorally. I'm not sure what it would take, but I think it still comes down to a huge mistake or scandal for Obama.

Posted by doofman | March 5, 2008 12:28 AM

I love Texas Democracy.

Posted by Andruw | March 5, 2008 12:29 AM

All the superdelegates will go for Hillary!

And if that's not enough, then we will probably add more new superdelegates that have promised to vote Hillary. Or maybe we'll bring back "black people only count for 3/5ths of a vote."

Whatever it takes baby! No rule change is off the table, no matter how ridiculous.

Posted by cd6 | March 5, 2008 12:31 AM

But what will the narrative be tomorrow morning? You got it: The Comeback Kid! The Comeback Kid! Turns out not quite every state in the union hates Hillary after all, so she's staying in!

If there is justice in this world, the media will press Hillary every bit as hard tomorrow morning about how she can justify staying in given the math at this point as it pressed Obama about this Rezko/Muslim/Farrakhan BS from the past week.

Posted by SDinIA | March 5, 2008 12:31 AM

"Chuck Todd is predicting a net win of delegates for Obama in Texas, possibly a net win large enough to overcome Clinton's net delegate pickup in Ohio."

All of this despite her winning of the popular vote in TX. But there's nothing undemocratic about that, right? I wanna hear everyone who decries those evil superdelegates potentially "overturning the will of the people" be intellectually honest and bitch about how caucuses subvert the popular will and are biased against working people, sick people, non-English speaking people, and old people.

I wanna hear it.

Posted by Israel | March 5, 2008 12:32 AM

Obama's campaign got complacent. They let Hillary dictate the message. She threw the kitchen sink and she is fighting Obama like he is a Republican. This is terrible for November.

He may eek out Texas, and will most likely get the delegates, but Hillary will not quit. He needs to win the popular vote in Texas, or this goes into June, wastes a lot of democratic money, and damages Obama.

Brian
http://www.politicalinaction.com

Posted by Brian | March 5, 2008 12:34 AM

I love Matthew Y. democracy, ya know, when you cheer on the less liberal candidate who earns more Dem votes.

Posted by Andruw | March 5, 2008 12:34 AM

Obama (and his partisans) are going to regret focusing on "the math.". First, it is a bloodless argument that talks about rules over voters. If you accept the thesis that delegate counts matter more than votes, you lose the rationale for excluding the superdelegates. In fact, it would make sense to many that superdelegates are there to protect against unforeseen consequences from arcane caucus math.

Second, if Florida and Michigab re-vote in June, the primary math changes. If Hillary sweeps PR (which is a total machine election), she can get to near parity by the convention. If Obama leads by less than 50 pledged delegates, the media is going to call it a tie and give the superdelegates the breathing room to make independent choices.

Posted by Ephus | March 5, 2008 12:34 AM

The caucuses started at 7 PM. So I guess they hurt the night shift voters. (Guess Hillary can't caucus!)

The sick vote. Hmm, yeah, a major Hillary constituency.

They have translators at caucuses. Really, they do.

As for old people, Obama volunteers have been driving them over. I'm sure some of Hillary's have done the same.

Not that I'm a huge proponent of caucuses, but they are a fair indication of whose base is more "fired up."

Posted by Tony | March 5, 2008 12:34 AM

Israel - The Texas caucuses started at 8:00pm Texas time, no? And I would suggest that non-English-speaking people are not fully invested enough in our society to deserve representation. (My parents are immigrants, before you call me a xenophobe.)

Sick and old, I'll grant.

Posted by nbt | March 5, 2008 12:36 AM

The rules are what they are, Israel. Just because Hillary didn't know what the hell they were until two weeks ago doesn't mean they weren't there in broad daylight for anyone to see. Hell, wasn't Ickes heavily involved in writing them?

But I'm sure when all those rules were written years ago, back when the Texas primary/caucus didn't matter one iota, they were written that way just so they might screw Hillary Clinton someday. Because as we know, everyone is out to get her.

Figures a Clinton supporter would come around and complain about the rules after the fact.

Posted by SDinIA | March 5, 2008 12:37 AM

I honestly wonder sometimes whether people are willfully ignorant.

Ephus: "The math" is determined by "the votes." Obama is winning in states, the popular vote, and the delegates. Saying that "the math" backs him up is saying that all of the above back him up.

Posted by Zar | March 5, 2008 12:38 AM

So, a few weeks ago, the Clinton camp basically argues that we should all ignore all the states Obama was then winning, and that she would make up the difference in delegates on March 4.

As March 4 comes closer, it becomes clear that this is next to impossible for her to manage (needing massive wins in both Ohio and Texas to do it). I can't help but think that the media is only ready to accept the Clinton camp's redefinition of success because the alternative would have been too boring for them. If at all possible, the media is only too happy to manufacture a made-up election night drama, no matter how little effect their declarations of winners and momentum actually have on the underlying delegate math.

Posted by Spenser | March 5, 2008 12:40 AM

Speaking of Texas math... I've been crunching the numbers, and I don't think there's any remaining chance for Obama to catch Clinton in the Texas primary vote. People seem to be counting on late returns from big cities, but the early voting results have already been tallied, and most of the missing precincts are in counties that favor Hillary. She's going to win by 2-3%.

Posted by LaFollette Progressive | March 5, 2008 12:42 AM

Clearly, Ohio doesn't count.

Posted by jim | March 5, 2008 12:42 AM

Spenser, there's no doubt that the media wants to draw this out. Great for ratings. I bet they're pushing for another debate (!).

Seriously, Obama should release a memo of all the Clinton quotes saying the gap would be gone after Firewall Tuesday. And then one by one over the next seven weeks have a different superdelegate endorse him.

Posted by Tony | March 5, 2008 12:43 AM

Israel-
I wanna hear everyone who decries those evil superdelegates potentially "overturning the will of the people" be intellectually honest and bitch about how caucuses
Bzzzzt that's where you fail. If you want to complain about situations where one can lose the popular vote but win in delegates because it is not truly representative, fine.

But that is based on the decision to allocate delegates by performance within state senate districts not whether or not caucuses or primaries are used to tally votes in that district.

Of course, you also have the option of just whining about caucuses some more, even though it's irrelevant. It's not my candidate who can't motivate supporters enough to caucus for her.

Posted by cd6 | March 5, 2008 12:43 AM

Also, Israel, I would not count on Clinton winning the TX popular vote quite yet. If you're watching the updated totals, they're starting to turn against Hillary again as the urban precincts continue to count and the rural ones stop. I'd say Obama ekes out the popular vote in the end.

Posted by Zar | March 5, 2008 12:43 AM

"the bottom line is that it continues to be unclear how Clinton can actually win barring some catastrophic Obama meltdown."

You mean like losing most of the coming contests?

Posted by Petey | March 5, 2008 12:44 AM

This is a basic conceptual problem with many Clinton supporters: they think "the math" is just another argument. But "the math" is not an argument, it is an objective description of reality.

Posted by DTM | March 5, 2008 12:44 AM

Obama's campaign got complacent. They let Hillary dictate the message. She threw the kitchen sink and she is fighting Obama like he is a Republican. T

I, for one, seriously hope that Obama has a roundtable meeting with his campaign staff, does some serious soul-searching about their tactics, and then retools their message and ground operations. Obama has a serious weakness: while he beats Hillary when he manages to outflank her campaign or organize his voters under the radar, he wins. However, when he fights Hillary head-to-head (eg, NH and MA before and OH and possibly TX today), he loses.

Posted by Tyro | March 5, 2008 12:46 AM

This is a basic conceptual problem with many Clinton supporters: they think "the math" is just another argument. But "the math" is not an argument, it is an objective description of reality.

Boiled down: That depends on what the definition of "is" is.

Posted by Kevin | March 5, 2008 12:48 AM

Woo-hoo! Texas called.

Three in a row for Clinton.

Obama is bleeding...

Posted by Petey | March 5, 2008 12:48 AM

Zar - the "math" is about the delegate count. The overall popular vote is in flux, and not what Obama has been hanging his hat on. The number of states could not conceivably be less relevant.

If Hillary wins Indiana, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Kentucky and Puerto Rico and Obama wins Mississippi, Oregon, Wyoming and North Carolina, you are going to see June or July primaries in Michigan and Florida. IMHO, whoever wins both will get the nomination (even if Obama has a 40 pledged delegate lead).

Posted by Ephus | March 5, 2008 12:48 AM

Zar: you may be right. Missouri tightened very fast at the end to give Obama a 1% margin. Still, I think the "horse race" narrative is more about "off the floor" than it is n delegates for Obama, m delegates for Clinton.

I thought Clinton's opening remarks tonight in her speech were quite canny - it's very late in the day, but by finding a way to emotionally connect to potential voters "this is for those of you who've been knocked down and got up one more time..." she gives her continued candidacy a purpose which is about more than just experience vs change.

Posted by Andrew | March 5, 2008 12:48 AM

"If Hillary wins Indiana, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Kentucky and Puerto Rico and Obama wins Mississippi, Oregon, Wyoming and North Carolina, you are going to see June or July primaries in Michigan and Florida. IMHO, whoever wins both will get the nomination (even if Obama has a 40 pledged delegate lead)."

Pretty much spot on.

Posted by Petey | March 5, 2008 12:52 AM

I posted this in the comment threat of another post yesterday:
"In my opinion, one of the worst outcomes for Obama tomorrow would be for Hillary to win majorities in Ohio and Texas, but for Obama to actually win more delegates in Texas due to the allocation process."

This is lose-lose for Obama. I'd say he's still a 80% or more favorite to win the nomination. However, if Hillary does eek out the popular vote in TX, the outcome tonight is the precise scenario in which Hillary gets to claim big media victories while simultaneously shine a spotlight on the flaws of the delegate allocation process. I saw Chuck Todd on MSNBC earlier explaining how the border counties have disproportionately fewer delegates than the urban counties and there was a palpable awkwardness and the ultimate implication -- even the primary (let alone the caucus!) is not one-person, one-vote -- finally seemed to dawn on the panelists.

What people aren't realizing is that Hillary knows full well she cannot win a majority of pledged delegates. Where does that leave her? She has to undermine the whole notion of using pledged delegates as the basis for superdelgate-persuasion or fundamentally, the nomination. If people catch on that a huge share of Obama's delegates came from caucuses and Hillary can point to *obvious* examples like Texas where even primaries seem to be undemocratic, (and especially if she wins the majority of the popular vote nationwide), she might actually have a chance at having a claim to the nomination at the convention! The "some states don't count" argument was just the test missle for the nuclear war about to follow.

Posted by Ryan | March 5, 2008 12:53 AM

Obama is bleeding...

I just want to take a moment to thank Petey for all he's doing for the Democratic party.

Nothing like a good internecine knife fight to help the Democrats and the long-suffering American people . . .

Posted by southpaw | March 5, 2008 12:54 AM

Just let it be known. If Hillary usurps Obama and takes the democrat nomination, I am voting for John McCain in the fall. And I am going to defect to the republican party for the foreseeable future. And I will do everything in my (albeit limited) power to ensure Hillary loses and McCain wins in november. Fuck Hillary Clinton.

Posted by Nick | March 5, 2008 12:54 AM

I can't remember ever being so angry as I've been tonight.

As someone else on the board said, Remember the good old days, when she needed blow out victories? Remember when the polls had her up by 20 in Ohio and 15 in Texas? Now it looks like she will barely pick up any delegates, and in fact may end up losing the delegate count, and all anyone's talking about is her sudden resurgance and momentum. WHAT THE HELL?? There is no way she gets more delegates. NO WAY. Do people not realize that yet? Hopefully when the dust settles from today in a couple days, people will realize, hang on, she gained nothing, and Obama still has an insurmountable lead! It's probably wishful thinking but... we'll see.

Posted by Gus | March 5, 2008 12:55 AM

I am a staunch Obama supporter, but you lose fuckin' Ohio AND Texas on friggin' March 4th then you've got serious problems.

If she wins Pennsylvania, even if she's trailing slightly in pledged delegates and popular vote, she's got a very legitimate claim.

We're screwed, how are they gonna work this out?

Posted by mike | March 5, 2008 12:56 AM

I just want to take a moment to thank Petey for all he's doing for the Democratic party.

Nothing like a good internecine knife fight to help the Democrats and the long-suffering American people . . .

So, Petey, just for the sake of argument, if Obama gets the nomination, who will you vote for?

If Clinton gets the nomination, I will vote for her in November.

Posted by Kevin | March 5, 2008 12:56 AM

Tyro,

Despite later claims to the contrary, Clinton competed in a lot more states with Obama than that. Clinton also ducks states where she thinks she has no hope of winning, whereas Obama does not.

Posted by DTM | March 5, 2008 12:56 AM

Ugh, the NYT piece on tonight is awful.

The worst part is she's going to go more negative. I can't believe Obama has gone this long without "accidentally" calling her Monica. I'd have my surrogates doing that weekly. Probably why I'll never be president.

Posted by Tony | March 5, 2008 12:57 AM

Hopefully a blood vessel in her brain will explode tomorrow. That would solve the problem.

I'll be praying hard for that tonight.

Posted by patriot | March 5, 2008 12:59 AM

"Nothing like a good internecine knife fight to help the Democrats and the long-suffering American people..."

Obviously, southpaw, you've never seen the Untouchables. It's funny seeing how Barack refuses to apply any of the lessons from that movie.

His big problem is that he's not playing Chicago-style. If she's pulling a knife, he needs to pull a gun; if she's sending his campaign to the hospital, well, then he needs to send hers to the fucking morgue.

Posted by Greg | March 5, 2008 1:00 AM

Hopefully a blood vessel in her brain will explode tomorrow. That would solve the problem.
I'll be praying hard for that tonight.

You are a sick, twisted asshole.

Fuck off.

Posted by Kevin | March 5, 2008 1:00 AM

If people catch on that a huge share of Obama's delegates came from caucuses and Hillary can point to *obvious* examples like Texas where even primaries seem to be undemocratic, (and especially if she wins the majority of the popular vote nationwide), she might actually have a chance at having a claim to the nomination at the convention!

The conventional wisdom seems to be that this kind of thinking is completely insane, but I'm not sure why. If Hillary catches up in the popular vote, why shouldn't the superdelegates give her the nomination? I support Obama, and I'm pretty sure if he were in that position I would say the superdelegates should do exactly that. Wouldn't it make the result appear more, not less, legitimate to most people?

Of course if she doesn't catch up in the popular vote it doesn't matter what happens from now on.

Posted by Brendan | March 5, 2008 1:00 AM

It's caucuses, open primaries, and state senate district receiving more delegates based on past performance that make this thing absurd. Either way, this all proves that the pledged delegate metric is no better than others.

I would argue the final tally of the democratic popular vote should prevail -- why does some Bush voting, clueless, gullible idiot get to decide my nominee.

Good news is that PA is a closed primary, the way these things should be. And Puerto Rico, well... this should be fun.

Where's all that precious smug you Obama people have been exuding lately?

Posted by Israel | March 5, 2008 1:01 AM

Nick - the kind of voter whose existence is an argument against democracy.

And I say this, mind, as a Green. I see unacceptable commonalities between Obama/Clinton and McCain. But if you're for Obama over McCain on the issues, Nick's position is utter irrationality.

Posted by Kalkin | March 5, 2008 1:03 AM

Gus, that was me, and the millions of average voters don't read The Atlantic. They'll read the Times piece maybe, or listen to MSNBC, dubbing her "The Comeback Kid II" even though all she managed to do was not blow massive leads in states that suitor her very well demographically (Latinos in TX, old people/less educated in Ohio). They'll think hmm, maybe there is something to this woman after all. She's a fighter!

Then we'll get more photos of Obama in Kenyan garb, probably one with a cigarette. We'll see an ad extremely exaggerating what Hillary did in the White House. Obama, being the man that he is, will refuse to point out even one of the hundred skeletons in the Clinton closet. We'll take this thing to convention. Clinton, with the clout of a former president behind her, will push lawsuits and do whatever it takes to get the nod.

Posted by Tony | March 5, 2008 1:03 AM

Obama needs to go negative - REAL negative. Nuke negative. Through surrogates, of course, not himself. Take the gloves off. Blacken the evil creature's name to an extent that she will be one of the most hated women in history.

And it should be easy. You KNOW how much oppo on her has to be out there.

Posted by LarryM | March 5, 2008 1:04 AM

I just want to take a moment to thank Petey for all he's doing for the Democratic party.

Nothing like a good interecine knife fight to help the Democrats and the long-suffering American people . . .

Posted by southpaw | March 5, 2008 12:54 AM >>

I want to thank Obamabots for their commitment to democracy...WTF/STFU, the most even fight in 40 years of Dem primaries is a 'knife' fight.

Yet, HRC is divisive.....

Posted by Andruw | March 5, 2008 1:05 AM

So far we have one f-bomb dropped on Hillary with a promise to vote for McCain if Hillary is nominated and one wishing death on her. Stay classy, San Diego.

We need a Democrat in the White House. Either of these candidates would be light-years better than McCain.

Posted by ephus | March 5, 2008 1:05 AM

So far we have one f-bomb dropped on Hillary with a promise to vote for McCain if Hillary is nominated and one wishing death on her. Stay classy, San Diego.

We need a Democrat in the White House. Either of these candidates would be light-years better than McCain.

Posted by ephus | March 5, 2008 1:05 AM

Bill O'Reilly was just on with Brit Hume giving Rush the credit for the Clinton comeback. There is no doubt that it was Republicans trying to sabotage the Democrats by voting for the least electable candidate in Hillary.

This is a big story; will the media run with it? Will the Democratic party superdelegates allow their process to be corrupted by sinister Republicans salivating to take on super corrupt Hillary with all of her baggage?

If the media doesn't run with this, then you know Rush will. He is probably the happiest person right now.

Posted by cm | March 5, 2008 1:06 AM

"Where's all that precious smug you Obama people have been exuding lately?"

It's right here. I keep it next to the insurmountable delegate lead and the overwhelming cash advantage.

Posted by mankiewicz | March 5, 2008 1:08 AM

I swear it's groundhog day...rescuing defeat from the jaws of victory. Leave it to the chronically stupid left to screw up a can't-lose proposition. This is as laughable as it is pathetic.

Barack Obama is the first serious liberal with any bonafides to have a shot at winning the presidency since JFK, and what's the lunatic fringe decide to do?

Hold everything, Mabel! we need to resurrect the Clinton spectre and maybe figure out a way to hand this thing to the GOP.

This isnt suicide, it's cannibalism.

Posted by resh | March 5, 2008 1:08 AM

LarryM, if you've studied Barack's other tough races, he got his ass kicked because he's utterly incapable of playing Chicago rules. As a result, there's a good chance he'll probably fail to do what you suggest and lose.

Posted by Greg | March 5, 2008 1:08 AM

"Where's all that precious smug you Obama people have been exuding lately?"

It's right here. I keep it next to the insurmountable delegate lead and the overwhelming cash advantage.

Posted by mankiewicz | March 5, 2008 1:09 AM

It is this simple: Obama is a hyper-liberal, just like Yglesias, and is simply unelectable in the big picture.

Closest approximations of the big picture: California, New York, Texas, New Jersey, Florida, Massachussets, Ohio, Michigan.

Hillary won all of these. That makes her electable.

Yglesias would be surprised to find that the people he talks to at Washington cocktail parties, the people swooning over Obama, are not representative of the United "Big" States of America.

Posted by Ringo Meza | March 5, 2008 1:09 AM

Obama has a serious weakness: while he beats Hillary when he manages to outflank her campaign or organize his voters under the radar, he wins. However, when he fights Hillary head-to-head (eg, NH and MA before and OH and possibly TX today), he loses.

Well, that certainly sound like someone the Democrats ought to rally behind: someone who permits herself to get outflanked.

And how is it that the only states that count as head-to-head fights are the states Hillary won? Picking Massachusetts as the only "head-to-head" state of the 2 dozen contested on Super Tuesday seems like a pretty severe case of cherry picking.

Posted by ChuckE | March 5, 2008 1:10 AM

"There is no doubt that it was Republicans trying to sabotage the Democrats by voting for the least electable candidate in Hillary. This is a big story; will the media run with it?"

Check the exit polls before you open your dumbass mouf...

Yglesias, you should be proud of your readers.

Posted by Israel | March 5, 2008 1:12 AM

I want to thank Obamabots for their commitment to democracy...WTF/STFU, the most even fight in 40 years of Dem primaries is a 'knife' fight.

Yet, HRC is divisive.....

Honestly? I congratulate Senator Clinton on her victories, but I regret the manner of them. Let's recall the "kitchen sink" campaign of the last week--the lead regained in Texas by painting a fellow Democratic candidate as weak and untrustworthy on national security. And let's also recall what I was responding to, Petey's glee that: "Obama is bleeding . . ."

Heal thy own cause, Andruw.

Posted by southpaw | March 5, 2008 1:13 AM

It is this simple: Obama is a hyper-liberal, just like Yglesias, and is simply unelectable in the big picture.

Apparently Obama is both a "hyper-liberal", according to "Ringo", and a closet Republican if you believe Petey.

He's both too liberal, and not liberal enough.

Fascinating.

Posted by Kevin | March 5, 2008 1:14 AM

Don't forget the conference call the Clintons had asking the media to investigate Rezko. I can't believe Obama didn't do the same for Hsu or Afghanistan.

And can Clinton supporters stop bringing up Michigan? Motherfucking Undecided got 40% there.

Posted by Tony | March 5, 2008 1:17 AM

Here is what obama fanatics refuse to get about the math:
The pool of possible pledged delegates that can get him alot closer to 2025 just got a lot smaller.
He is closer to 2025 but so is Hillary in equal measure. IT JUST got even more impossible for him to get to 2025 without Hillary leaving race and now she has absolutely no reason to leave race.
Math-wise he can't get there. She can't either but he can't get there at all without superdelegates and he's already said that isn't legitimate.
And now he's gone and completely lost his momentum.
What happens if Richardson or Edwards endorse hillary?
And where are caroline and maria shriver and Teddy lately?
She has the momentum and she's the underdog still.
it must suck to be an obama supporter tonight and tomorrow.

Posted by michael C. | March 5, 2008 1:18 AM

If Clinton gets the nomination, she will lose at least 45 states, including California. That might not have been the case if she won the nomination with a wire to wire victory, but the only way she can win now is with the super delegates. And whatever one thinks of the "fairness" of that, if she wins that way, 1/3 of the dems will vote for McCain and 1/3 will stay home or vote third party. And, of course, her sleeze tactics against Obama which are, if anything, worse than what we see from the Republican slime machine.

Obama has his electoral weaknesses, but at least he has a shot, probably better than 50%. Though that diminishes weekly, as Clinton does everything she can to elect McCain so she can have another shot in 2012.

I still think that Obama wins this - mathematically she can't come anywhere near catching up in pledged delegates, and the supers won'r go for her unless it's very, very close, and maybe not even then. But she may well injure Obama fatally., Which is at least part of her goal.

Now, I'm not a big enough Obama fan to care that much, normally, but I do think that McCain is a dangerous lunatic. Not quite dangerous enough to make me choose Clinton over him, but dangerous enough.

Posted by LarryM | March 5, 2008 1:20 AM

Obama's campaign got complacent. They let Hillary dictate the message. She threw the kitchen sink and she is fighting Obama like he is a Republican. This is terrible for November.

I'm not sure if they got complacent or if they gambled that they could take at least one of the two big states, most likely Texas, without having to go negative. The gamble failed. Now they're going to have to do it, in part because Hillary has forced it on him with her own 100% negative campaign (both overt and subterranean), and also to prove to wavering voters and superdelegates that he can deal with the inevitable Republican attacks.

This is tricky though; the sexism police will try to rein him in, and for all their bitching about the media, Clinton pushback has been amazingly effective.

Posted by ChuckE | March 5, 2008 1:20 AM

Michael C, that's ridiculous. All the Obama supporters have ever argued is that the superdelegates should ratify the choice of the primary and caucus voters--i.e. the pledged delegate leader. The math on that works just fine for us.

Posted by southpaw | March 5, 2008 1:22 AM

MY should start renaming his Democratic nomination posts to reflect the true nature of the threads: "Yet Another Conversation with Petey"

"Republicans trying to sabotage the Democrats by voting for the least electable candidate in Hillary."

People can barely peel themselves off the couch to vote for a candidate they like. People don't go to the polls to vote for someone they hate because of some lame speculation about electability. "Let's rally the conservative base for Hillary!! Her head to head poll numbers are 4 points worse than Obama's and negatives are still over 40%! Tally ho!" Not every lame idea some activist thinks up actually becomes a feature of mass behavior.

Some Obama people talk as if Hillary is the second coming of Adlai Stevenson. She would be favored over McCain just like Obama should be.

Posted by Colatina | March 5, 2008 1:24 AM

"And let's also recall what I was responding to, Petey's glee that: "Obama is bleeding"

Damn fucking straight. Nothing but glee.

We're going to take down Obama, and then we're going to take down McCain.

This ain't a Republican year. This ain't an Independent year. This is a Democratic year.

If you're not for universal healthcare, you're not getting into the White House.

-----

"and (Obama is) a closet Republican if you believe Petey."

No. He's a spineless centrist in my book. He thinks standing for universal healthcare will make him look too lefty and will cut into his upscale donor base, so he sells out the Democratic base instead.

It's classic spineless centrism. Quite different than Republicanism.

Posted by Petey | March 5, 2008 1:25 AM

Remember that strange Hillary comment she made when asked about Obama's faith on 60 Minutes? Axelrod said that she knew very well about Obama's faith; that they had been to prayer breakfast's together.

Now Hillary could have said that and been classy. Instead she chose a very deliberate set of wording to plant doubt in some minds.

It's time to go as mean and negative on Hillary as possible. I'm all for clean politics, but you have to do it with other classy people. With the Clintons it is like fighting criminals; you have to get mean.

Posted by cm | March 5, 2008 1:26 AM

Greg and LarryM, (among others)
Obama (and his campaign) aren't incapable of drawing out the knives. How could that be...it's the easiest thing in the world! It's that he states to represent a different kind of politics, and so chooses not to. He has painted himself into a corner of his own making; incidently, that make his (some) of his supporters giddy (this one included). You know why people are gushing at his rallies? Because the sour taste caused by personal insults don't happen, and therefore don't ruin the high.
This ain't over yet. But, to me, it feels like the quick-drawing outlaw just killed the deputy; and now the sheriff has someone to meet at high noon. But the only weapon he has to use is an argument for a new kind of politics. I will keep the hope alive.

Posted by colleeniem | March 5, 2008 1:26 AM

Michael C, no candidate can win anything but the most one-sided race without superdelegates, so what you posted makes no sense.

Does it suck to be an Obama supporter? I'm pleased with how I voted.

Posted by ChuckE | March 5, 2008 1:26 AM

I hate to bring this up, but you do realize that Obama's voting record is probably more liberal than Hillary's, right? Unless you count AUMF or Kyl-Lieberman or cluster bombs as liberal.

God damn the internet. It's so tough arguing with idiots. And yet so hard to stop.

Posted by Tony | March 5, 2008 1:28 AM

Where are Hillary's tax returns? There should be people at every Hillary rally asking this with signs? A website should be set up, showing a count up timer.

The media should pound away at this. The media got rolled and manhandled by the Clinton campaign this past week.

Posted by cm | March 5, 2008 1:29 AM

southpaw: "Let's recall the "kitchen sink" campaign of the last week--the lead regained in Texas by painting a fellow Democratic candidate as weak and untrustworthy"

Be still my beating heart.

Seriously?

Meanwhile, read Digby.

Posted by Andruw | March 5, 2008 1:31 AM

"He thinks standing for universal healthcare will make him look too lefty and will cut into his upscale donor base"

By your standard, Hillary has only been "standing for universal health care" for a few weeks now, since a bit after Edwards came out with his plan. By making mandates the bar for universal health care, you've managed to put Mitt Romney to the left of Obama on the issue, which is absurd.

It's the basic problem with Hillary's message: everything she accuses Obama of, she's guilty of times five. "Spineless centrism" is on the short list for best descriptions of her whole life in politics.

Posted by Colatina | March 5, 2008 1:34 AM

What the Obama campaign needs to do: go after Hillary in a more strong way...you gotta have sharp elbows now. Also, go after Hillary more than McCain; you have to dispense with her first.

The Obama campaign needs to get on the offensive again, and put Hillary back in defensive mode.

That means questioning her tax returns, or lack thereof...and other stuff. Because the Republicans would never neglect to do that.

Posted by cm | March 5, 2008 1:34 AM

cm, that's Obama's job, to be honest, not the media's. He's going to have to get his hands dirty. And it's certainly not an illegitimate thing to bring up. Norman Hsu seems like a distraction, but no more so than Rezko.

And in reference to your previous vote about Hillary's sleazy little remark on 60 Minutes, that's one reason why it doesn't suck to be an Obama supporter: I don't have to apologize for or explain away having cast a vote for someone like that.

Posted by ChuckE | March 5, 2008 1:34 AM

I can't help feeling the Clintons will find a way to subvert democracy (MI, FL, Superdelegates) and take the nomination away from Obama. I'm convinced they will say anything, do anything, hurt anyone to get what they're after. As an independent voter, I hope the Republicans crucify her if she gets the nomination. I will never vote for a Clinton (again).

Posted by kady | March 5, 2008 1:35 AM

Lmao, this nomination is over. It's been Obama's for a while. No matter what fantasies Clinton supporters have about super delegates, it's not going to happen.

Posted by Soullite | March 5, 2008 1:35 AM

colleeniem,

Yes, you have indeed highlighted one of the reasons why I'm only a reluctant Obama supporter. That new politics bullshit.

The other is his continued support of the hegemonic project and the national security state. But I'll take him over McCain (insane warmonger) and Clinton (Bush lite, and with the integrity of slime mold ... no, that's unfair to slime mold) any day. Especially since there are at least a few hints that his foreign policies might not kill quite as many people as would Clinton's and McCain's. And he does seem to have some integrity. Perhaps a little too much, alas.

Posted by LarryM | March 5, 2008 1:35 AM

Obama has a serious weakness: while he beats Hillary when he manages to outflank her campaign or organize his voters under the radar, he wins.

He has a serious weakness, all right, but his election day strategy has zilch to do with it.

His serious weakness is that he can't win an election without blacks, liberals, or independents--ideally two out of three. That's all that accounts for every single one of his wins.

Like I keep telling you--the demographics are unchanging, and they won't change. This was Obama's last chance to try. And, from what I can tell, he was not trying to convince the base in Texas--most of his radio ads were aimed at independents and Republicans. In short, he was trying to rig the race in his favor.

All the talk about going negative is delusional. Obama won't win any other group than the two groups he already has locked up, no matter what he does.

Posted by Cal | March 5, 2008 1:36 AM

Look, there are understandable reasons to prefer Clinton over Obama. Not good reasons IMO, unless you think that the Bush foreign policy would have been just fine if competently executed, but understandable reasons.

But people who support Clinton because they think she is more liberal than Obama - well that's just lunacy. It would be like people who want to withdraw from Iraq voting for McCain.

Oh wait ...

God, Americans are stupid.

Posted by LarryM | March 5, 2008 1:42 AM

Cal: nice of you to dismiss blacks, liberals, and independents...I guess you believe that it's bad for the Democratic party to have a candidate that appeals to those groups. I mean, it's not like we need independents to win in the general election, is it?

Plus, Obama has won huge in all types of states with all types of people...Mo, Wi, Co, et al. Again, those are the swing states that the Democrats need to win.

As for the states won by Hillary...NY, Calif, etc...well, most of those are going to be blue states anyway in the general election, regardless. In many ways, they are the least important to prove yourself in now.

There is one exception: if Hillary continues this fight, and steals the nomination, she could very well rip the party apart and then she would lose huge to McCain in the general election.

Of course her strategy may be to sabotage Obama so he cannot win the general, and then she can run again in 2012.

Hillary is evil, and needs to be stopped. That is majority opinion in this country now, because the Republicans believe it, and now half the Democratic party believes it too.

I liked Bill, but now I wish he had been removed from office during his impeachment, just to stop this ruthless, vicious, unprincipled power couple.

Posted by cm | March 5, 2008 1:43 AM

Cal, that is just not true. Ohio is making everyone forget February, when he won the majority of the white vote, and even the women vote in some states (VA I believe, an important swing state). These states favor her very much, and she almost blew it in TX and held serve in Ohio. Nothing's changed.

kady, you have that feeling because it's exactly what she's been doing and what she will continue to do. For months she argued that it would be OK for the superdelegates to overturn the pledged delegates. In December she admitted on NPR that there was no reason to get off the ballot in MI/FL because they "won't count." This week we had her aligning herself with John McCain in an effort to make Obama look weak. This isn't about taking the White House back for America or Democrats; it's about taking it back for the Clintons. Sorry Clinton Crew, but I'm absolutely convinced.

What has our country come to, where you HAVE to attack, insult, and embarrass your opponents to get elected?

Posted by Tony | March 5, 2008 1:44 AM

Be still my beating heart.

Nah, keep your pulse up, fella. Obama now has to give your candidate as good as he got. Whoever wins (and don't kid yourself, it will be him) will end up dirtied and compromised and have a tougher time in the fall. But hey, it's all worth it for the greater glory of the Clinton family and the promise of an non-passable health care plan.

Maybe Obama can go on 60 Minutes and say that Hillary isn't a lesbian, as far as he knows. It'll be just great for the party.

Posted by southpaw | March 5, 2008 1:44 AM

"In short, he was trying to rig the race in his favor."

Stop the presses. We've just discovered that Obama tried to rig the election by running radio ads. Not only that, but he tried to rig it in **his favor**.

Posted by Colatina | March 5, 2008 1:45 AM

No they don't. Most Democrats, even Obama supporters, like Hillary and vice versa. Quit catastrophizing.

Posted by John Petty | March 5, 2008 1:45 AM

Petey: This ain't an Independent year.

If you don't want my vote, I'm willing to give it to McCain.

I'm an libertarian-leaning independent. Obama isn't a perfect fit, but at least he's willing to work with people like me.

Clinton and Petey want to fight? Well, it doesn't have to be that way, but if you're determined to fight, I guess we'll fight.

If you win the nom, that is.

Posted by Creamy Goodness | March 5, 2008 1:46 AM

The only way to put an end to the Clintonian style of mean, dishonest politics is to punish them for it. As long as it works, they and others will keep using it.

And yes, that means the Obama campaign needs to get tougher with them. There are so many targets...the tax returns, Hillary's mythical experience on national security, etc.

Posted by cm | March 5, 2008 1:48 AM

Well, he has called her on natl. security, just not that publicly:

http://tinyurl.com/28zts2

Posted by ZednCu | March 5, 2008 1:49 AM

"By your standard, Hillary has only been "standing for universal health care" for a few weeks now, since a bit after Edwards came out with his plan."

She actually xeroxed the Edwards plan right after Labor Day 2007. That's about six months ago.

And if Obama were to somehow reverse himself and adopt the Edwards plan tomorrow, Barack would suddenly be OK by me too.

Posted by Petey | March 5, 2008 1:53 AM

I don't want to pile on Petey while he's absent, but if he's under the impression a Democrat can be elected president with no independent votes, he must be stuck in 1964.

Not to belabor the point, but the 60 Minutes thing just really goes to show what an unprincipled sleaze Hillary is, so much so that the pro-Hillary blogs were too embarrassed to bring it up. But hey, she's suddenly pretending she's against the war, and she's white! Yippee!

Posted by ChuckE | March 5, 2008 1:53 AM

I think Obama would probably be a fine president (certainly far better than McCain), his internet supporters are one of the most obnoxious cults out there. Look at all the spoiled, entitled whining in this thread. This is politics, your man is showing weakness, if he keeps showing weakness he will lose. Deal.

With the exception of the Potomac Primary in Maryland and Virginia, every time Hillary has faced Obama in a major state primary where media (as opposed to caucus organization) was key, she has won. If Obama can't regain his momentum -- if Hillary takes Pennsylvania, North Carolina, and do-overs in Florida and Michigan -- then there's no way Obama takes the nomination. Going in there with all those delegates from winner-take-all caucuses in North Dakota or Vermont or whatever is not going to do it against a major party figure who has swept just about all the most populous states.

On to Pennsylvania. May the best person for the party win.

Posted by mq | March 5, 2008 1:55 AM

The Hillary Clinton v. Barack Obama thing reminds me of MTV's: Celebrity Death Match. Announcer: And, Clinton just handed Obama his head ... but wait ... he's screwed it back on; and, he's holding up a chalkboard. What's he trying to say? Oh no, it's the total number of delegates he's won! That's got to hurt folks. Clinton is countering with the kitchen sink. Obama's got a blowtorch. Wow! That sink is red hot; he's welding the pipes together. Wait, who's that getting into the ring? Hey, he's not supposed to ... look out Obama! Bill Clinton just handed Hillary, a pair of oven mitts. Oh, here comes Michelle Obama ... with five-gallon jerry can of Texas style barbeque sauce. Man that stuff is hot. She's marinating both Clintons. Folks this is humiliating. Those Texas delegates just threw Barack a flamethrower ... oh no ... but wait, who’s that? It’s Monica Lewinsky; the Clintons are using her as a human shield. Well fans, somebody’s got to win this primary, but it doesn’t look like it’ll be Monica: http://theseedsof9-11.com

Posted by Peggy McGilligan | March 5, 2008 1:56 AM

I won't vote for Hillary in a general election. The clincher was her mocking of him with the whole "the sky will open and everything will be alright" thing literally days after claiming how "honored" she was to be on the same stage with Obama at the debate.

Before this entire election started I would have been honored to vote for either Hillary or Obama. True, I was, and am, an Obama supporter.

But watching how Hillary has conducted herself, ranging from dismissing states she hasn't won as unimportant (including my own), refusing to congratulate her opponent when he wins and she loses, to trying to get states that all candidates agreed would not count seated, to her continual racist approach to campaigning and smear tactics have soured me on her.

Since I cannot in good conscience vote for McCain, who is so insane that he'll vote to allow torture even though is a former POW, and I refuse to indulge Nader's narcissism by voting for him, I'll sit this election out if Obama doesn't win the nomination at this point.

This is just one person posting on a blog, but I'm probably not the only one. Hillary Clinton has done serious and lasting damage to the party with the tactics that she has used. After eight long, LONG, long years of Bush I was looking forward to someone different. The realization that I've gradually come to is that Hillary isn't enough of a difference to qualify in my mind.

Posted by Jim Crozier | March 5, 2008 1:56 AM

I thought Clinton's opening remarks tonight in her speech were quite canny - it's very late in the day, but by finding a way to emotionally connect to potential voters "this is for those of you who've been knocked down and got up one more time..." she gives her continued candidacy a purpose which is about more than just experience vs change.

Oh good grief. For all the talk about the narcissism of the Obama campaign, the Clinton campaign continues to be about the noble struggle of the multi-millionaire former First Lady who would be denied the Presidency by all kinds of nefarious forces. Maybe others find that this resonates with their daily struggles, but personally, I find the characteristically self-indulgent comparison to be absurd.

Posted by RS | March 5, 2008 1:58 AM

And this election has been quite polite in general, certainly compared to what the general is going to look like. If Obama can't handle the tame stuff Hillary has been throwing at him, then he shouldn't be nominated.

Posted by mq | March 5, 2008 1:58 AM

Just let it be known. If Hillary usurps Obama and takes the democrat nomination, I am voting for John McCain in the

fall. And I am going to defect to the republican party for the foreseeable future. And I will do everything in my (albeit limited) power to ensure Hillary loses and McCain wins in november. Fuck Hillary Clinton.

Posted by Nick | March 5, 2008 12:54 AM

Hopefully a blood vessel in her brain will explode tomorrow. That would solve the problem.

I'll be praying hard for that tonight.

Posted by patriot | March 5, 2008 12:59 AM

Obama needs to go negative - REAL negative. Nuke negative. Through surrogates, of course, not himself. Take the gloves off. Blacken the evil creature's name to an extent that she will be one of the most hated women in history.

And it should be easy. You KNOW how much oppo on her has to be out there.

Posted by LarryM | March 5, 2008 1:04 AM

Cute. Is this going to become another one of those sites for the next few months? That would be sad, Mr. Yglesias.

Sheesh no one will ever convince me that Obama supporters on the net aren't more obnoxious, I've seen too much evidence, there's almost no way one could make up for it. I don't have a favorite as to either candidate, I think they both have good sides and bad sides that balance out. Supporters, though, that's different: if anyone's tearing the party apart, it's Obamabots on the net. I don't understand why his netroots outreach is not trying to tamp down things he himself would Sister Souljah. It really reflects badly on him, much worse than what Hillary surrogates do, because it's so common, constantly scattered all over the liberal blogosphere.

Posted by artappraiser | March 5, 2008 1:59 AM

"I don't want to pile on Petey while he's absent, but if he's under the impression a Democrat can be elected president with no independent votes, he must be stuck in 1964."

I think Clinton is going to get her fair share of independents in the general election while losing fewer Democrats to McCain than Obama would.

Of course getting independent votes in the general election is a good thing. But choosing a nominee who loses the Democratic primary vote to accomplish that task is a bad thing. That's a trade-off you consider making in a bad year for your Party, not in a good year for your Party.

And 2008 is indeed a good year for Democrats.

Posted by Petey | March 5, 2008 1:59 AM

We're going to take down Obama, and then we're going to take down McCain.

And then we're going to bomb Iran, yeeeeaaaaaaaaa!

Where are Hillary's tax returns?

Yes yes yes. Obama cannot go negative but he can insist that Hillary be "fully vetted" prior to a general election. If Clinton's evasiveness happens t