Defection

Gabriel Guerra-Mondragon, a former Ambassador to Chile, and a "Hillraiser" who's brought in about $500,000 for the Clinton campaign is defecting to the Obama campaign. It seems "he was uneasy with the tone of the Clinton campaign and was beginning to worry about what this would mean for the general election."

This is a reminder, I think, of the fact that Clinton has actually been incredibly effective at convincing the vast majority of her key supporters not to embrace this logic even though essentially all outside observers agree that at this point her campaign does more to help John McCain than to improve her own chances of winning the nomination. Of course, a handful of defections could easily snowball given time, were a handful to emerge.

Comments

Keep on with the irrational Hillary hatred and the Obama fanboi stuff, dude. It's so original...

Posted by scottreads | April 25, 2008 6:55 PM

Keep on with the irrational Hillary hatred and the Obama fanboi stuff, dude. It's so original...

Don't let the door hit you in the ass on your way out, Red.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | April 25, 2008 7:05 PM

Keep on with the irrational Hillary hatred and the Obama fanboi stuff, dude. It's so original...

Keep trolling Scott. It's so original...

Posted by BCdem | April 25, 2008 7:08 PM

There will soon be a shortage of graveyards available for whistling past...

Posted by Davis X. Machina | April 25, 2008 7:10 PM

$10 million in one day is pretty damn impressive.

Posted by John McCain: More of the Same | April 25, 2008 7:26 PM

Scott isn't trolling. He's simpley pointing out a fact that essentially all outside observers agree upon; that at this point MattY's blog is nothing but tedious repetition of irrational Hillary hatred and Obama fanboi stuff.

Posted by A New Fox News Fan | April 25, 2008 7:30 PM

I enjoy this blog, but it is amazing how, after MY spends another day with repeated "HRC get the f*** out of the race!" posts, and a commenter dare mention it may be a bit obsessive, they are a "troll".

Really folks, that is seriously downgrading the effectiveness of the term.

BTW, Krugman had a great piece in the Times today. Would have been nice to see Matt, Josh, Atrios (and others) address that piece in bringing up this topic, as opposed to a fundraiser no one has ever heard of.

Or maybe not, since only Atrios (despite his vote), is the only one of that group with any credibility left in discussing the 2008 Democratic primary.

Posted by Andruw | April 25, 2008 7:30 PM

I cannot help but feel her negativity is all about 2012. There is just so much pointing to this. Including helping McCain.
I may be wrong but, it's something I've felt for some time now.

Posted by vwcat | April 25, 2008 7:33 PM

It will really be a shame when the only blogs left with any credibility are Talk Left, Corrente, and Larry Johnson's. I give it about ten days...

Posted by br | April 25, 2008 7:34 PM

Everything MattY says is absolutely correct. You bitter Clintonites need to stop whining and figure out what you are going to do with all your anger once she is out. Probably all you assholes will continue to write your idiotic blog comments. Boo hoo.

Posted by Clintonites are so bitter | April 25, 2008 7:34 PM

It will really be a shame when the only blogs left with any credibility are Talk Left, Corrente, and Larry Johnson's. I give it about ten days...

You mean the only blogs that continue to pander to delusional Clintonites.

Posted by Poor loser Clintons | April 25, 2008 7:37 PM

...Talk Left, Corrente, and Larry Johnson's.

They'll be toasting The Queen Over the Water there generations from now...

Posted by Davis X. Machina | April 25, 2008 7:46 PM

Matt's posts today:

Public education spending
Which pollsters are accurate?
Basketball
Buy my book!
New Israel lobby
Rich people vote Republican
Pointer to NYT article on problems with new ship
McCain sucks on fiscal policy
The future of spelling
Dem primaries--proportional representation?
Peretz bashing
Airports and land use policy
Obama--smooooth
Put me on your TV show!
Why is NY pizza better?
McCain sucks on foreign policy
Hilary should quit

Out of seventeen posts, two deal with the Dem presidential candidates, two bash McCain, and two deal with aspects of the Dem process. In other words, New Fox News Fan, you are on the intellectual level of your favorite tv station.

Posted by William Burns | April 25, 2008 7:46 PM

Wanna see something funny?
Watch Kleiman vs Merritt, poor Jeralyn is totally lost.

Posted by michaelw | April 25, 2008 7:51 PM

Geez, William burns the Fox News Fan.

Posted by Warren Terra | April 25, 2008 7:52 PM

Posted by Clintonites are so bitter>>

Irony meter explodes.

Posted by Andruw | April 25, 2008 8:03 PM

William, you're not supposed to use logic and facts.

Posted by 55 | April 25, 2008 8:04 PM

Oh, yeah? Well, your candidate sucks worse!

Posted by representative of Matt's new commentors | April 25, 2008 8:06 PM

Clinton/Huckabee will dominate the fall campaign.
The people will rise up against their crazy Republican and limo liberal overloads.
The new ARk of the Covenant will melt all the economic royalists, sarcastic bloggers, haters of UHC, and neo-Nazis. Apologies to any Darwinists who may be caught in the death rays but they should know their sacrifice is for the greater good.

Posted by Henry Jones | April 25, 2008 8:19 PM

Olberman just apologized on-air for a rape/murder analogy he used in discussing HRC on Wednesday after her big win in PA.

He said some "Super Super Delegate" should take her in a room...and only "he" comes out.

Nice.

Good times, 'professional liberals'.

If O'Reilly said that it would have been Topic Number One on all the liberal blogs.

But Keith supports Obama.

Posted by Andruw | April 25, 2008 8:21 PM

I listened to the podcast of the Jeralyn Merritt/Mark Kleiman Bloggingheads (it's good radio, but do people actually watch those???). I'm absolutely committed to Obama and not Clinton in this primary, so maybe I just have absolutely no ability to assess the conversation, but she seemed like a really poor advocate and was completely unable or unwilling to engage with anything Kleiman said. If she said anything of note other than repetitions of "she wins the big states!" for the 40 minutes, I didn't notice.

Certainly I was left with the impression that, should I be so unfortunate as to need a lawyer to plead my case, it'd really suck to wind up with Merritt.

Posted by Warren Terra | April 25, 2008 8:23 PM

Umm, Andrew, without defending Olberman's comment in the slightest, I have absolutely no idea where you get the idea that rape might be involved in his imaginary scenario.

Posted by Warren Terra | April 25, 2008 8:27 PM

Good Lord, I am going to have nightmares over that Kleinman-Merritt debate.

The circular logic, the ignorance, the obtuseness -- it's Hillarytastic!

Posted by Woody Bombay | April 25, 2008 8:43 PM

Warren Terra: "Umm, Andrew, without defending Olberman's comment in the slightest, I have absolutely no idea where you get the idea that rape might be involved in his imaginary scenario."

A man enters a room with a woman who he is seeking to destroy, with no one else present, and he leaves room by himself...

Perhaps Keith only wished the murder of Hillary Clinton to prevent votes in the remaining primaries, and not her rape in that secluded room.

You may be correct--but the fact that no "liberal", "feminist" bloggers (you know, the ones that link to their feminist ex-roommates) mentioned this at all is noteworthy.

Posted by Andruw | April 25, 2008 9:13 PM

Olbermann is indeed a huge Obamafan, but only after the Clintons started playing him for a fool by moving the goalposts and coming up with new metrics every other day. Also, he got really mad about her constantly siding with John McCain to attack a Democrat. Good for him.

Posted by 55 | April 25, 2008 9:15 PM

Hillary today said that people can vote for or against anyone they want based on whatever reason they want to and then even cited hairstyle. This was her code language that it's OK for people to be racist in their voting.

Hillary = closet racist

Posted by cm | April 25, 2008 9:20 PM

Wow, it's really interesting to see someone respond to Jeralyn like an adult and see her say "Nah nah nah nah, I can't hear you". Maybe it's her training as a defense attorney that allows her to defy logic and reason to defend the indefensible, but the lady's a freakin nutjob.

Posted by ben | April 25, 2008 9:20 PM

And I mean "good for him" for the getting mad about Hillary kissing McCain's ass, not whatever he just said.

Posted by 55 | April 25, 2008 9:22 PM

Perhaps Keith only wished the murder of Hillary Clinton to prevent votes in the remaining primaries, and not her rape in that secluded room.

KO never literally "wished" any of this, it's what we, in the English-speaking world, call a metaphor. Like when we say Clinton "beat" Obama in PA, we don't literally mean that she attacked him. What KO was suggesting was that Clinton should GTFO out of the primary before she does any more damage to the nominee. Either you're retarded or think we are for claiming otherwise.

Posted by Andruw, you ignorant slut | April 25, 2008 9:30 PM

BTW, Krugman had a great piece in the Times today. Would have been nice to see Matt, Josh, Atrios (and others) address that piece in bringing up this topic, as opposed to a fundraiser no one has ever heard of.

What I find amazing about Krugman, is that he doesn't seem to understand that you can say some nice words about someone, and disagree with them anyway. Obama does that a lot, and he doesn't seem to get it.

Posted by Bengt Larsson | April 25, 2008 9:35 PM

Convince her to take the VP slot and move on.

Posted by Rich | April 25, 2008 9:44 PM

"BTW, Krugman had a great piece in the Times today. Would have been nice to see Matt, Josh, Atrios (and others) address that piece in bringing up this topic, as opposed to a fundraiser no one has ever heard of."

Dream on.

The small tent Democrat faction pretends it can't hear stuff that isn't "helpful" to their bleeding candidate.

Posted by Petey | April 25, 2008 9:47 PM

WATB's ARE EXCELLENT NEWS!! FOR HILLARY!!!

Posted by idiotic | April 25, 2008 9:55 PM

Petey considers a big tent to be one large enough to hold white, blue collar guys, women and old people. What more do you need?

Posted by Pug | April 25, 2008 9:55 PM

"Petey considers a big tent to be one large enough to hold white, blue collar guys, women and old people."

I think a big tent Democrat considers both Obama and Clinton to be reasonable Democratic candidate for President, since both factions they represent are important parts of the Party.

I think a small tent Democrat considers Clinton to be Satan and Obama never to be spoken badly of, since they think the Party would be better off without Clinton's faction.

Posted by Petey | April 25, 2008 10:09 PM

BTW, Krugman had a great piece in the Times today. Would have been nice to see Matt, Josh, Atrios (and others) address that piece in bringing up this topic, as opposed to a fundraiser no one has ever heard of.

Yeah, Mighty Krug-Man was great this morning.

...And unlike poor Matt & Co., I bet he even studied some basic arithmetic class in college!

Posted by RKU | April 25, 2008 10:10 PM

That guy is pretty gutsy to do this. I would imagine it was a very difficult thing to do.

Posted by Pete | April 25, 2008 10:23 PM

"The small tent Democrat faction pretends it can't hear stuff that isn't "helpful" to their bleeding candidate."

So true.

I have yet to hear a Clinton supporter explain how their candidate will handle questions about her delegitimization of red-state Democrats, independent voters who voted in Democratic primaries, and caucus voters in the general election.

Nor have I heard anyone explain why Clinton's support of the Million Mom March won't come back to haunt her when the Republicans start showing that picture of her in the tan- sorry, with the rifle over her head.

Posted by Splitting Image | April 25, 2008 10:37 PM

Krugman:

Once voters got to know him — and once he had eliminated Hillary Clinton’s initial financial and organizational advantage — he was supposed to sweep easily to the nomination, then march on to a huge victory in November.

Well, now he has an overwhelming money advantage and the support of much of the Democratic establishment — yet he still can’t seem to win over large blocs of Democratic voters, especially among the white working class.

This is, frankly, a strawman. No serious analyst that I've seen (serious = spare me the Andrew Sullivan links) thought Obama would cleanly dispense with Hillary Clinton as soon as he reached financial and organizational parity with her.

Hillary Clinton is the wife of a former president and he's actively campaigning on her behalf. She has tremendous name recognition. She began the race with most of the Democratic patronage machines around the country lined up behind her. And she is, by all accounts, a person of formidable intellect and resolve. Wresting control of the party away from her was always going to be a profound struggle. That it would take time and be marked by strife and setbacks comes as no surprise. Nor is it a surprise that low-information voters and those with the strongest connections to the Democratic machine have tended to remain loyal to the ancien regime.

Put more simply, Hillary Clinton began this race with an Octopus-like grip on the traditional Democratic Party. Obama has had to hack off a number of tentacles to dislodge her, and he's had to endure a number of inky blasts to the face.

But Barack Obama is on the brink of defeating a Clinton, something no Democrat and no Republican has done since 1980. That's no small accomplishment, and it's no surprise that it's been a long difficult struggle.

Posted by southpaw | April 25, 2008 10:42 PM

"Put more simply, Hillary Clinton began this race with an Octopus-like grip on the traditional Democratic Party. Obama has had to hack off a number of tentacles to dislodge her, and he's had to endure a number of inky blasts to the face."

Sure. Impressive achievement.

But building out his core support of AA's and upscale goo-goos to 45% of the Party and not being to get any further is like a basketball team that wins all its home games but can't win on the road. The fact that the Portland Trailblazers were a .500 team this year is impressive considering where they started from, but they're still not in the playoffs.

And the inability of Obama to expand on his coalition beyond his narrow core is what's going to leave him vulnerable in June.

-----

Here's the crucial section of the excellent Krugman piece:

Let me offer an alternative suggestion: maybe his transformational campaign isn't winning over working-class voters because transformation isn't what they're looking for.

From the beginning, I wondered what Mr. Obama's soaring rhetoric, his talk of a new politics and declarations that "we are the ones we've been waiting for" (waiting for to do what, exactly?) would mean to families troubled by lagging wages, insecure jobs and fear of losing health coverage. The answer, from Ohio and Pennsylvania, seems pretty clear: not much. Mrs. Clinton has been able to stay in the race, against heavy odds, largely because her no-nonsense style, her obvious interest in the wonkish details of policy, resonate with many voters in a way that Mr. Obama's eloquence does not.

Yes, I know that there are lots of policy proposals on the Obama campaign's Web site. But addressing the real concerns of working Americans isn't the campaign's central theme.

Tellingly, the Obama campaign has put far more energy into attacking Mrs. Clinton's health care proposals than it has into promoting the idea of universal coverage.

During the closing days of the Pennsylvania primary fight, the Obama campaign ran a TV ad repeating the dishonest charge that the Clinton plan would force people to buy health insurance they can't afford. It was as negative as any ad that Mrs. Clinton has run -- but perhaps more important, it was fear-mongering aimed at people who don't think they need insurance, rather than reassurance for families who are trying to get coverage or are afraid of losing it.

Posted by Petey | April 25, 2008 11:33 PM

Is kind of amazing to me that Krugman would keep insisting that white working class voters are actually a reliable and necessary democratic vote. They haven't been in a long-ass time. I guess he's so insistent because Clinton would need to win them, given her inability to win independents and crossover republicans. Don't have a lot of confidence in her ability to turn out the black or youth votes at this point, either. I know I'll stay home if she steals the nomination. Obama shouldn't toss away working class whites, but because of his broader appeal, he doesn't need to win as many of them as a more traditional democratic candidate. Also, it's really old people who are the problem, as he's won younger working class voters in quite a few states.

In any case, I totally agree with you, southpaw, Krugman's is the classic strawman argument.

What Obama has managed is a bloody miracle. And bravo.

Posted by Kristen | April 25, 2008 11:35 PM

Is kind of amazing to me that Krugman would keep insisting that white working class voters are actually a reliable and necessary democratic vote. They haven't been in a long-ass time. I guess he's so insistent because Clinton would need to win them, given her inability to win independents and crossover republicans. Don't have a lot of confidence in her ability to turn out the black or youth votes at this point, either. I know I'll stay home if she steals the nomination. Obama shouldn't toss away working class whites, but because of his broader appeal, he doesn't need to win as many of them as a more traditional democratic candidate. Also, it's really old people who are the problem, as he's won younger working class voters in quite a few states.

In any case, I totally agree with you, southpaw, Krugman's is the classic strawman argument.

What Obama has managed is a bloody miracle. And bravo.

Posted by Kristen | April 25, 2008 11:35 PM

Krugman's horse-race analysis leaves a lot to be desired. He needs to stick to the wonky stuff.

Posted by blah | April 25, 2008 11:37 PM

"Put more simply, Hillary Clinton began this race with an Octopus-like grip on the traditional Democratic Party. Obama has had to hack off a number of tentacles to dislodge her, and he's had to endure a number of inky blasts to the face."

And the fascinating thing is that the Obama challenge has perfectly positioned Clinton for the general election and administration.

Clinton would never have been able to connect with working class voters this well without getting to contrast herself to Obama for months on end.

I now think Clinton has a decent shot to win places like West Virginia in the general election, and I don't think that shot would've existed without the contours of the particular nomination race we've been watching.

In a very real sense, Obama's challenge has helped the chances of Hillary Clinton and the Party this fall.

Posted by Petey | April 25, 2008 11:39 PM

"Put more simply, Hillary Clinton began this race with an Octopus-like grip on the traditional Democratic Party."

Southpaw, you're one of the best commenters here, but the Clinton's have NEVER been the faves of the DC-Dems. Ever. Her grip was the definition of tenuous.

Most were waiting for the moment they could abandon them. Ask Al Gore.

Posted by Andruw | April 25, 2008 11:45 PM

"Is kind of amazing to me that Krugman would keep insisting that white working class voters are actually a reliable and necessary democratic vote."

Wow. The we win if Obama loses in November crowd is strong in the blogosphere.

They'd rather lose than embrace economic progressivism.

Small tent Democrats, indeed.

Posted by Petey | April 25, 2008 11:52 PM

Look, stupids, Matt calls it like it is with Clinton. She's scum compared to Obama. Her campaign was run on racism, whining, crying jags, lies, and bullshit. She and her husband are corrupt, lying pieces of shit. Period.

I'm not an Obama "fanboi" (not to mention that I'm an anarchist who hates ALL politicians). I think he's utterly ignorant about military affairs and foreign policy, and he'll end up starting a war with Iran out of ignorance if not maliciousness. But compared to Clinton, let alone McCain, he's at least not *obviously* a corrupt, lying POS. I'm sure he is, but at least he isn't *obvious* about it.

Besides which, GIVE IT THE FUCK UP! Clinton CAN NOT win the nomination unless Obama either dies or self destructs so clearly that even his pledged delegates will dump him.

Clinton has NO CHANCE of winning the nomination unless Jesus comes down and endorses her.

She has no lead in pledged delegates and cannot recover that even if Michigan and Florida are seated. She has no lead in popular vote and cannot recover that even if Michigan and Florida are seated. Her superdelegate lead is around two dozen and her trend is down, down, down. There is ZERO evidence that there is ANY superdelegate inclination to Clinton.

And Gore and Carter are going to endorse Obama and demand she drop out of the race shortly, according to reports.

So STFU.

And Petey, you're on ketamine or DMT if you think Clinton can survive a contest with the Republicans simply because Obama has treated her with kid gloves. They have so much dirt and innuendo on her that she'll never be able to make one speech or one media interview without having to spend the entire time defending herself, whether the accusation is true or bullshit.

For Obama, what they have is: Rezko, Reverend Wright and "he's black (and a secret Muslim)." That's it. Compared to Clinton's 35-year history of corruption, lies, rumors, not to mention Bill Clinton as a deadweight around her neck...please.

Obama hasn't touched any of that in this campaign - and since he wasn't trying to doom the Dems in a general election, he was right to do so. Clinton had no such compunctions about running the race card.

Clinton supporters - the new definition of "dead enders."

Give it up or kill yourselves.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | April 26, 2008 12:30 AM

Andruw,

Thanks for the kind words. This piece, which has been floating around today, certainly underlines your point:

THE 1992 CAMPAIGN: The Front-Runner; Like Voters, Superdelegates Have Doubts About Clinton

By R. W. APPLE JR.,

Even though Bill Clinton won four primaries on Tuesday, even though Paul E. Tsongas announced today that he would not re-enter the race for the Democratic Presidential nomination, even though many of them concede there is probably no stopping Mr. Clinton now, dozens of Democratic senators and representatives remain reluctant to endorse him.

Senator Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia scheduled a news conference for Friday to announce his backing. Senator Tom Daschle told news organizations in his home state, South Dakota, that the moment had come to rally around Mr. Clinton. But beyond that there was little movement.

Of 264 superdelegates in the House and Senate, 93, or 35 percent, have endorsed Mr. Clinton so far, according to a continuing survey by The New York Times. Most are Southern, and most made their statements some time ago. A much larger number remain officially uncommitted.

As you say, Bill Clinton was not, and continues not to be, the favorite son of Democrats who came to power before him (many of whom have endorsed Barack Obama at opportune moments). I didn't mean to deny that. But over the course of Clintons' careers, Bill and Hillary built up a formidable network of loyalties throughout the national party--from politicians (Terry McAuliffe, Ed Rendell, Bill "Judas" Richardson, Antonio Villaraigosa) to fundraisers to operatives to union presidents to sympathetic members of the press.

That network, I'd argue, left the Clintons in functional control of the national party as of December of 2006. And the story of the Obama campaign has been one of slowly, fitfully, breaking the Clintons' grip on the institutions and constituencies they had converted to their cause.

Also, I think it's sort of beside the point that a lot of people will be relieved to see the Clintons go. The Clintons win loyalty through a combination of affection and fear. And a lot of people who would be happier, on net, if Hillary lost are nonetheless not going to cross her in order to make that happen. They'll throw ticker tape at Obama when he wins, but they're not going to buy his stock until Clinton's is off the market.

Posted by southpaw | April 26, 2008 12:32 AM

"Her campaign was run on racism"

So says Richard Steven Hack.

A pathetic loser IT guy who lives vicariously by writing internet comments about people who actually have lives.

My printer isn't working RSH, can you get me a cord?

Posted by Andruw | April 26, 2008 12:37 AM

In a very real sense, Obama's challenge has helped the chances of Hillary Clinton and the Party this fall.

Umm, Petey, aren't you kind of treading on the trademark line of frequent (if monotonously repetitive) commenter Idiotic here?

Posted by Warren Terra | April 26, 2008 12:37 AM

Petey:

But building out his core support of AA's and upscale goo-goos to 45% of the Party and not being to get any further is like a basketball team that wins all its home games but can't win on the road. The fact that the Portland Trailblazers were a .500 team this year is impressive considering where they started from, but they're still not in the playoffs.

First off . . . As evidenced above, Bill Clinton ran into far more significant difficulties consolidating Democratic voters (and superdelegates) than Obama will, I'd wager, and now his wife is the tribune of the steelworker.

Next . . . The reason the Trailblazers aren't in the playoffs is because lots of teams had better records. If you're looking for an NBA team that's analogous to Obama, I think it's the Lakers. (I could say the Celtics, but I'm trying to be generous about the competitive nature of the contest. And, as a Laker fan, I tend to think of the Eastern Conference as the Republicans anyway, so . . . Go Lakers!)

Anyway, Obama has the best record of any of the Democrats. He's got home court advantage at the convention. And provided that I'm right and he will eventually slay the octopus, I have no doubt that her constituencies will overwhelmingly come home. Even Jack Nicholson will be cheering courtside for Obama come November.

Posted by southpaw | April 26, 2008 12:46 AM

And again, I'll caution that Hillary Clinton's path to the nomination is now fraught with peril for the Democratic coalition (see e.g., Jim Clyburn).

Hillary may have the white working class, but the "goo-goos" and the "AAs" and the newly registered voters and the other constituencies that she stands to alienate in profound are crucial to a Democratic victory too.

Posted by southpaw | April 26, 2008 12:54 AM

It's over. The superdels have made up their mind, its just a matter of arranging a soft landing for the Clinton campaign. Her only path to the nomination involves Obama and a grizzly bear.

All that's left now is placing our bets on who Petey supports in the GE. I say the odds are 2-1 Nader, 3-1 McCain, and 5-1 Paul at this point.

Posted by Doug H. (Fausto no more) | April 26, 2008 1:07 AM

Hillary may have the white working class, but the "goo-goos" and the "AAs" and the newly registered voters and the other constituencies that she stands to alienate in profound are crucial to a Democratic victory too.

Petey is so fucking smart that he when he was hashing out his CW and doing his beer-wine track analysis and making his intrade bets he forgot to check current demographics and how they might have changed over the years. So basically he's a low-information nobody and unworthy of concern. *cough* data-points *cough*

Posted by Ed Marshall | April 26, 2008 1:11 AM

"Hillary may have the white working class, but the "goo-goos" and the "AAs" and the newly registered voters and the other constituencies that she stands to alienate in profound are crucial to a Democratic victory too."

Both the AA's and the upscale goo-goos will come home en masse with Obama as Veep. Obama gets 2016, and after a month of loud grumbling, those folks will decide they can live with it.

But Obama has no way to get the voters outside the McGovern coalition that he'd need to win states like OH and PA to come home, no matter who he puts on the ticket. Unlike the AA's and upscale goo-goos, those folks have someplace else they can go in November.

Plouffe made a goofy decision after Tsunami Tuesday that he didn't need to broaden Obama's appeal - that The Math was all that was necessary, that the McGovern coalition would deliver that math, and so he could stay narrow.

Unfortunately for Obama, February and March was the moment where the larger electorate was first getting to know Obama, and that poor strategic decision created a situation where Team Obama wasn't even trying to extend the Obama brand beyond the core demographic during that crucial time period. Pending an Indiana win for Clinton, that miscalculation is likely going to cost them the nomination.

Team Obama ran a great operation up through Tsunami Tuesday. But they didn't take advantage of the crucial opportunity that day provided to them to broaden out their appeal, and now their fate is out of their hands.

Posted by Petey | April 26, 2008 1:48 AM

Petey,

Geez. Talk about self-flaggelation! What part of "it's over" don't you understand? My God! We're back to Obama as VP? It is NEVER, EVER, EVER going to happen. In the one in a billion chance that he is not the nominee, he would then in turn, never, ever, ever work for that crazed sociopath. He's way, way too sane for that and no one is going "live with it." Ever. Period.

For your own well-being, please consider some alternatives.

Posted by NA Patriot | April 26, 2008 2:08 AM

Petey, you are free to argue that Obama is unelectable, but Hillary would an even harder time. Current polls have her running competively in CA and losing the NW and Midwest. If she were steal the nomination from the pledged delegate leader, she'd lose the support of a huge portion of Obama supporters and she'd have a hard time even takin NY. She may grab an Appalachian state or two, but she'd be totally fucked everywhere else.

Hillary is about as likely to the nomination or the POTUS as Denver is to get a ring.

Posted by ben | April 26, 2008 2:11 AM

"Petey is so fucking smart that he when he was... doing his beer-wine track analysis ... he forgot to check current demographics and how they might have changed over the years."

Meh. I guessed in 2007 that if Team Obama played out the string with a narrow appeal and everything went correctly for them, they'd end up with 45% of the Democratic vote in a two way race. And that's almost exactly where they're going to end up.

That accomplishes Team Obama's purposes in terms of making Obama the future, but it likely (pending Indiana) doesn't accomplish stealing the nomination away this year.

If they'd had a gameplan to broaden out after Tsunami Tuesday when the electorate was first getting to know Obama, they'd have had a good shot at getting away with it and stealing the nomination this year.

Posted by Petey | April 26, 2008 2:20 AM

Of course, a handful of defections could easily snowball given time, were a handful to emerge.

Exemplary use of the subjunctive, Matt. Well done.

We now return you to the endless Petey-related gyrations.

Posted by subdude | April 26, 2008 2:34 AM

"Meh. I guessed in 2007 that if Team Obama played out the string with a narrow appeal and everything went correctly for them, they'd end up with 45% of the Democratic vote in a two way race. And that's almost exactly where they're going to end up.

That accomplishes Team Obama's purposes in terms of making Obama the future, but it likely (pending Indiana) doesn't accomplish stealing the nomination away this year.

If they'd had a gameplan to broaden out after Tsunami Tuesday when the electorate was first getting to know Obama, they'd have had a good shot at getting away with it and stealing the nomination this year."

Are you serious? Really? Seriously? A person capable of competent thoughts can type things like this and actually mean them?

I'm pretty shocked, to be honest. But I'll respond anyway.

"if Team Obama played out the string with a narrow appeal and everything went correctly for them, they'd end up with 45% of the Democratic vote in a two way race. And that's almost exactly where they're going to end up."

Well, let's see. Today's Rasmussen puts Obama at 49-42, a lead outside the margin of error. In fact, he has had a lead 27 of the last 30 days, and been above your mystical 45% mark 26 of the last 30 days. You seem to be incredibly impervious to *actual data* from reliable pollsters. Please post any data you have that leads to the conclusion you so ignorantly posted.

"That accomplishes Team Obama's purposes in terms of making Obama the future, but it likely (pending Indiana) doesn't accomplish stealing the nomination away this year."

You may be willfully ignoring this, but Sen. Clinton has not had the lead in pledged delegates in *any* time this year. Seriously. She hasn't. She had a head start of over 100 superdelegates that tried very much to "steal the nomination" in the manner you apparently suggest, but that was clearly overcome, and Sen. Obama has had the overall lead throughout this campaign, both before and after Feb 5, and will undoubtedly continue to have it through June 3.

So, *please* explain under which conceivable metric Sen. Obama is *stealing* the nomination? He very clearly leads under every possible legitimiate metric that can be calculated, and will continue to lead in every possible metric throughout the end of the season. So if you know something about the math that every other person here does not, please share it.

"If they'd had a gameplan to broaden out after Tsunami Tuesday when the electorate was first getting to know Obama, they'd have had a good shot at getting away with it and stealing the nomination this year."

This, more than anything, makes me think that you are simply a troll. It is blatantly obvious that Sen. Clinton had planned to wrap up the nomination on Feb. 5 and had absolutely no plan afterwards, as evidenced by the results.

Sen. Obama, on the other hand, had planned for the post-Feb 5 battle well beforehand, and had many field offices set up in Colorado, Washington, Mississippi, and countless other states long before Sen. Clinton ever considered them. As a result, he won 11 straight contests after Feb. 5.

Are you seriously just impervious to reality? Sen. Obama's goal on Feb. 5 was merely to survive, because he knew he had massive organizational advantages afterwards, and in fact has won almost every contest afterwards, and amassed an impervious delegate lead. And you seriously have the gall to claim that "if they'd had a gameplan to broaden out after Tsunami Tuesday"? Their whole campaign strategy revolved around precisely this, and the 11 straight wins throughout February demonstrated their foresight, strategy, and judgment. For you to claim they had no plan shows you as being incredibly oblivious to actual results, and that renders you incapable of making any kind of relevant opinion on this race.

You are either a conscious denier of reality, or a Clinton troll who makes blatant lies in support of a lost cause. The day when your rhetoric is completely irrelevant draws ever nearer. We cannot wait.

Posted by Adam | April 26, 2008 2:37 AM

"Petey, you are free to argue that Obama is unelectable, but Hillary would an even harder time. Current polls have her running competively in CA and losing the NW and Midwest."

You might want to review the current available polling to see that Clinton holds a significant electoral vote lead compared to Obama in the general election. (Matt's comment system only allows one link per post, but you can easily find the link to the comparable Obama map on that page.)

And it's not just the current polling. Clinton's consistently had more electoral votes than Obama over time throughout the ups and downs of polling.

Finally, FWIW, I'm not saying Obama is "unelectable". This is a good Democratic year, and I think he certainly could win. But his inability to expand on his base means he's significantly less likely to win. And since most Dems don't agree with the loopy concept that losing in November with Obama is more of a win than actually winning with Clinton, he's going to have some real problems in June.

Posted by Petey | April 26, 2008 2:42 AM

Plouffe made a goofy decision after Tsunami Tuesday that he didn't need to broaden Obama's appeal - that The Math was all that was necessary, that the McGovern coalition would deliver that math, and so he could stay narrow.

This is a superficially appealing theory, but I think it's wrong.

Obama did broaden his coalition throughout February, banking 20+ point wins and increasingly edging into Clinton's coalition from the Potomac Primary through Wisconsin (a massive Obama victory in a state that featured demographics heavily favorable to Clinton).

During this period, the Clinton campaign seems to have been characterized mostly by internal dissension as a result of the dismissal of Patti Solis Doyle and an ongoing effort to emasculate Mark Penn. They did, however, manage to plant one crucial concept in the media narrative: They got everyone to believe that Hillary Clinton did not need to win a single contest of the twelve between Super Tuesday and Texas & Ohio.

Then, some time after Wisconsin, Clinton decided to begin running as a stalking horse for the Republican party (the 3am ad, public fluffing of McCain's qualifications, encouraging right wing smears regarding Obama's faith, etc. etc.). This relentlessly negative tactic has the effect of freezing Obama's progress with Hillary's demographic constituencies, but it does so at great cost to Clinton's credibility as a McCain opponent and to her standing with high information voters (see, e.g., Josh Marshall, James Fallows, Matthew Yglesias).

I can't imagine what tactical move David Plouffe could have made that would have defanged the impact of a harshly negative campaign by a former First Lady against a candidate with Obama's biography. That was bound to damage Obama, and it has.

What we're glossing over, of course, is that it damaged Hillary more. While it was always mooted that Hillary would win Ohio and Pennsylvania, I'm not sure anyone thought that she'd have to push her negatives up to 55 and her honest & trustworthies down to -60 to do it.

But if she does get the nomination, I think you're being ridiculously blasé about the challenges she'll face. First, she doesn't have a path to the nomination that Obama's supporters will consider legitimate. The story won't be that our guy got beat in a bitter but fair fight; the story will be that the nomination was cynically (and idiotically, in our view) stolen to field a weaker candidate against McCain. Second, there's really no great reason for Obama to take the VP slot if the nomination is stolen from him. He'll be pretty raw about it. And he'll have a huge pissed off constituency begging him to bolt or sit it out or do anything but validate a historically vapid and cynical miscarriage of justice. And he justifiably won't want to jump aboard a sinking ship. And if I'm wrong about all that and Obama does get aboard, then the goo-goos maybe come back, but I don't think the AAs will for lots of historical and cultural reasons, which I'm sure will be much discussed if we ever get to that point.

Thankfully, of course, we'll never get to that point. Clinton has already lost; moreover, she's widely disliked, widely distrusted, and widely feared. Those facts can be briefly obscured by the Clintons' patented Barrage of Nonsense for the first couple news cycles after she wins a primary. But as nonsense goes, it's pretty thin stuff, and it won't last through June . . . much less through the long hot summer that follows it.

Posted by southpaw | April 26, 2008 2:43 AM

Sure, Petey, let's review the current available polling. Let's even use your site, not Poblano's (fivethirtyeight.com), which has for every day since it's been up held that Obama is more likely to win the general election than is McCain.

Here we go (posted from kos):

The author has helpfully divided the states into Strong, Weak, and Barely Dem/GOP. Let's see how our two candidates fare:

Obama Clinton
Strong Dem 67 74
Weak Dem 144 98
Barely Dem 58 117
Tied 15 10
Barely GOP 76 13
Weak GOP 44 89
Strong GOP 134 137

What's this tell us?

It tells us that Obama's base is stronger: "strong" and "weak" Dem add up to 172 for Clinton, and 211 for Obama. We have to play less defense.

With Obama, McCain's base is weaker: 226 EVs versus Clinton, and 178 versus Obama.
These two data points alone are worth the price of admission for Obama. With him as our nominee, Democrats have a larger safe base, and Republicans have a smaller one. But what about the contested states?

More Democratic states are at risk with Clinton. In the "barely Dem" category, Clinton has double the EVs -- 117 to 58. What's more, the "tied" state -- Wisconsin, is a Blue state. So with Clinton, we have 127 EVs that are in weak hands.
With Obama, however, we have only 58 "barely Dem" EVs, and the tied states, North Carolina, is a Red state.

Obama puts more pressure on McCain states: With Obama, McCain has 76 "barely GOP" EVs compared to 13 against Clinton. Put another way, best case scenario where our candidates take all the states in their column and "barely GOP" columns, Obama ends up with 360 EVs, while Clinton would get 312. Obama has far higher ceiling.

Obama Holds the Kerry states better: This is related to the "base states" stuff above. The only Kerry state Obama currently loses is New Hampshire. On the other hand, Clinton loses Michigan, New Hampshire, and ties in Wisconsin. Furthermore, Obama has three Kerry states in the "barely" category -- Michigan, New Jersey, and Massachusetts. Clinton has six -- Washington, Oregon, Minnesota, Connecticut, New Jersey, and Hawaii. That means that Clinton is losing or barely holding on to 9 Kerry states (out of 19), compared to four for Obama.
Democratic numbers versus McCain are currently artificially depressed because of our long-running primary. But despite that disadvantage, Obama still runs a far broader, map-changing campaign than Clinton.

In other words: your candidate has lost. You have no arguments left that cannot be easily refuted. You are a buffoon for trying to do so, but we will refute them nonetheless. I only hope that you are as anti-McCain in the fall as you are anti-Obama now.

Posted by Adam | April 26, 2008 2:48 AM

With respect to the electoral map, see kos (click through for the analysis, using what I believe to be Petey's and Clinton's data):

If Democrats want to run the same campaign that has served us so poorly the last decade -- hold the Kerry states and win Ohio and Florida, then Clinton is the person. It's clear in her rhetoric that she can't fathom any other path to the White House. That's why she has insulted so many "Red" states and small states and whatnot. Because in her mind, 50%+1 is the only thing that matters.

Beside having a more solid base than Clinton, Obama's campaign would have a tough time competing in Florida, no doubt about that. But he opens up the Mountain West -- Nevada, Colorado, New Mexico, possibly Montana, North Dakota, and even one or two of Nebraska's EVs (they are apportioned by congressional district). Obama would be competitive in Texas, North Carolina, and Virginia -- with their large youth, African American, Latino, and creative class voters.

And I'm getting this all from the map currently cited by Clinton supporters as evidence of her supposed better electability. The map, sad to say (for them), says the exact opposite.

Posted by southpaw | April 26, 2008 2:53 AM

Whoops. You beat me to it, Adam. Well played.

Posted by southpaw | April 26, 2008 2:54 AM

"You seem to be incredibly impervious to *actual data* from reliable pollsters. Please post any data you have that leads to the conclusion you so ignorantly posted."

My actual data is from the voting that's been going on for the past four and a half months, not from Republican Scott Rassmussen's decisions about polling samples. Obama has right around 45% of the two-way Democratic popular vote so far, and will likely end up a bit below that.

He's done far better than that with the non-Democratic vote, which is how he's gotten up to 49% of the two-way total popular vote, and will likely end up a bit below that.

But Democrats are going to be deciding things in June, not non-Democrats.

Posted by Petey | April 26, 2008 2:57 AM

When Petey rolls out the old Dem/non-Dem canard, I go to bed. Night folks.

Posted by southpaw | April 26, 2008 3:10 AM

"I can't imagine what tactical move David Plouffe could have made"

Team Obama should have drawn Clinton into a decisive contest on ground of their own choosing back when Clinton was wounded and they were strong. Instead they decided to ignore Clinton and think that their elevation of the pledged delegate count into something more than it really was would hold up in any future storms.

Now they've got themsleves a decisive contest with Clinton in Indiana. And while Indiana is a decent state for them, they're entering the battle from a position of weakness.

If they'd taken a bit more strategic risk in February and not settled down in such an odd defensive crouch, they'd have been able to stage the big battle on far more favorable terms than what they're going to get now.

Posted by Petey | April 26, 2008 3:12 AM

Are we going to see Petey arguing that the NBA playoffs be determined by most wins in Colorado or the team with the highest point to assist ratio? The sad little man is seriously detached from reality.

Posted by ben | April 26, 2008 3:14 AM

"If they'd taken a bit more strategic risk in February and not settled down in such an odd defensive crouch, they'd have been able to stage the big battle on far more favorable terms than what they're going to get now."

While if Clinton knew what this "strategy" thing was, she would have won after Super Tuesday (as she so famously predicted: http://youtube.com/watch?v=saBU6ux0hsQ).

Posted by 55 | April 26, 2008 3:34 AM

If they'd taken a bit more strategic risk in February and not settled down in such an odd defensive crouch, they'd have been able to stage the big battle on far more favorable terms than what they're going to get now.

February:

LA: Obama 62 - Clinton 38
NE: Obama 68 - Clinton 32
VI: Obama 92 - Clinton 8
WA: Obama 68 - Clinton 31
ME: Obama 60 - Clinton 40
DC: Obama 75 - Clinton 24
MD: Obama 61 - Clinton 36
VA: Obama 64 - Clinton 35
HI: Obama 76 - Clinton 24
WI: Obama 58 - Clinton 41

You really do hate to see that prevent defense. Such a shame Obama didn't score a single decisive victory during that period.

Wait, what?

Posted by southpaw | April 26, 2008 3:38 AM

Screwed up the URL: http://youtube.com/watch?v=saBU6ux0hsQ

Posted by 55 | April 26, 2008 3:40 AM

Your own data prove Petey's point, Southpaw: in February, the period in which Petey asserts Obama should have been campaigning to secure the nomination as opposed to ignoring Clinton, Obama only broke 80% once, and that contest wasn't even in a state. If you ignore the non-states and his home state of Hawai'i, Obama didn't win a single state in February with a margin of more than 37 points, and he scraped through in one state with just a seventeen point margin!

If he had worked for the nomination in February instead of coasting to those 30-point victories, he could have ended the race!

Posted by Warren Terra | April 26, 2008 4:21 AM

Hillary is a political zombie.

Get in touch with reality.

Posted by David | April 26, 2008 5:00 AM

http://clintonista.wordpress.com/2008/04/26/as-for-the-symbolism-war-quod-erat-demonstrandum/

Posted by The Clintonista Post | April 26, 2008 6:27 AM

As an aside, Petey is a liar, and has been caught lying by several different people over time. I don't understand why people even bother with him anymore.

As another aside, it still amazes me that people talk about Clinton's coalition as if it was national. Her coalition as usually described doesn't hold up once you get out of the South and west of the Appalachians. So, it is a purely regional coalition, which is why she is losing (indeed, if her coalition had held up nationwide, she would be easily winning).

As a third aside, I think all this continues because of a complicit media. For example, last night on Hardball, Matthews was claiming Obama had not won the "white vote" since February 19, by which I assume he meant Wisconsin. Of course that is wrong: Obama won the "white vote" in Vermont on March 4, and the "white vote" in Wyoming on March 8. I can only guess Matthews was fed this line by some liar like Petey, and he went with it because it fit his preferred "the race goes on" narrative.

Anyway, on the actual topic of this thread: I think the obvious point here is that Democrats are starting to figure out that Clinton isn't going to stop bashing the Party's presumptive nominee just because she has no chance of winning the nomination. So, for the good of the Party, people are going to have to do more than just make it clear to her she has no chance of winning the nomination. Rather, they will have to start threatening her with something she cares about, since that doesn't include the good of the Party.

And losing the ability to fundraise to cover her debts, including her debt to herself, and in the long run perhaps losing funding for another Senate campaign, are things she might care enough about to get her to quit. Similarly, Clyburn's recent talk about Bill Clinton's legacy with black people is another threat to something they may care enough about. And so on.

Posted by DTM | April 26, 2008 7:03 AM

Warren Terra,

First take: heh!

Second take: it ain't what you do, it's the way that you do it. and that's what gets results.

Team Obama didn't find a way to take Clinton on directly in February, and that's what's biting them now. Both campaigns agreed that Clinton should be allowed to play possum in February, and that was actually only in the interests of one campaign.

Both campaigns agreed that only Obama's base was at contest in February, and that was only in the interests of one campaign.

But on the bright side, as stated, Team Obama's decisions during that period have helped legitimize Clinton to audiences she otherwise would've had trouble connecting with in November. It's win, win! We all love Plouffe now.

He's played the central part in turning Hillary Clinton into more of an economic populist than Kerry, Gore, or even Bill Clinton could have ever pulled off.

Posted by Petey | April 26, 2008 7:53 AM

I was going to say something astute, but I see that southpaw has already taken care of that...

Posted by Rihilism | April 26, 2008 8:45 AM

Matt is doing a great public service on a Friday evening in giving Clinton supporters (esp. Andruw, he apparently has nothing else) a place to vent, and God knows Clinton have a lot of pent up rage.

Posted by Mike | April 26, 2008 9:54 AM

But on the bright side, as stated, Team Obama's decisions during that period have helped legitimize Clinton to audiences she otherwise would've had trouble connecting with in November.

It's the Clinton team's decisions--to go negative, to flatter McCain, to run on fear, to posture as a sniper-dodging duck-hunting whiskey-drinker--that legitimized her to one audience (white working-class Democratic voters), and delegitimized her to many more (Obama supporters, the activist base) that any Democratic candidate will need in November. Your fantasy that such groups will be placated by giving Barack Obama--the frontrunner and certain delegate leader--the VP slot is as condescending and wrongheaded as, well, every other comment you've made in this thread.

Actually, even that response is too generous by half, since it follows your own logic. (And "logic" is probably too kind a term for any argument that claims "Team Obama didn't find a way to take Clinton on directly in February" with a straight face.) That presumes that Clinton did legitimize herself with white working-class voters, a group that was always leaning towards her (in the Democratic primaries--no guarantees for November). Clinton's victory could have been predicted back in February on purely regional and demographic reasons--in fact, the Obama campaign did just that, within four percent and two delegates, on that leaked spreadsheet. Your "legitimization" amounts to a marginal gain in a state primary that was always hers to lose. And it comes at the cost of her favorability, her trustworthiness, her likeability within her own party.

Posted by Marc | April 26, 2008 10:42 AM

Petey is frankly silly. Something tells me he was a Randian objectivist in high school due to his lack of understanding of everything. His entire obsession is based around the fact Clinton uses the word "mandate" in her plan despite the lack of an enforcement mechanism. Considering that Edwards was more popular on the blogosphere than in the real world and Petey was probably his biggest booster on liberal blogs' comment sections, one has to wonder to what extent Petey's abrasive personality led to many otherwise sympathetic liberals to be turned off of Edwards.

Notice has he dismisses big wins in 11 straight states as Obama not taking on Clinton directly. Unless something is done exactly how Petey would have done it, it doesn't count. Clinton started out with more advantages than any non-incumbent or VP in post-WWII American history. She actually bled supporters, most notably African-Americans, while she also has bled working-class whites just about everywhere but Ohio. Her husband also bled Cuban voters in Florida for Gore. Her only real loyal constituency are older white women. Working-class white men aren't exactly committed to her. A lot just seem to be voting for her as a proxy for her husband.

Considering that Gallup has had Obama around 50-51% of Democratic support recently despite Clinton's win in PA and more Americans have said they feel Obama shares their values than any other candidate (with around a 20+ advantage over Clinton), the fundamentals just don't look good for her. People have pretty much already made up their mind about her and the more she tries to destroy Obama as her only path to the nomination, the more people who were once sympathetic to her will decide that the war hero just looks more honorable.

Posted by Reality Man | April 26, 2008 11:57 AM

Hit a nerve, Andruw?

Meanwhile, Petey, you CAN use up to three links in a post. I do it all the time. Just don't go to four, the spam filter kicks in.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | April 26, 2008 5:15 PM