Let me just note that simply because Hillary Clinton is hopelessly far behind in North Carolina doesn't mean that Indiana is the only May 6 primary that matters. Insofar as the remaining contests matter at all, they all matter. The Clinton campaign did a good job of making the contests Obama won between March 4 and Pennsylvania go down the memory hole, so that I heard TV people talking about Clinton having a streak (her actual streak as of today is one win!) but she doesn't get to arbitrarily decided which states matter.
« Cohen on McCain: He Can Do Know Wrong | Main | Meanwhile, In Mississippi »
Expectations
23 Apr 2008 09:48 am
Comments (120)
Hillary just said that the "tide has turned". I guess her campaign has "turned a corner" and Obama's campaign is in its "last throes".
Hillary is sounding more and more like a Republican every day.
Another three months of this... The only thing that will stop it is for Clinton to concede, which she will not do because so long as she can win the superdelegates.
Two things are true. First, this race has been over since Obama won the 11 races after Super Tuesday. What he should've done at that point was to basically announce that he had won the race, refused to debate, and directed all of his efforts at McCain. He could've still "campaigned" in subsequent states to the extent that he was just "building an infrastructure for the general."
By approaching this as if this was still a winnable primary contest for Hillary, he gave oxygen to the second true thing: this race is not over until either Hillary drops out or the superdelegates vote at the Convention. That's how the Democrats set up the game - with proportional primaries and superdelegates - and that's how an exceedingly ambitious (to put it charitably) politician is playing it.
"she doesn't get to arbitrarily decided which states matter."
Of course she does. She's been doing that all along. And as far as I can tell, the MSM has been going along with it.
None of the primaries matter any more than the Dolphins' Week 17 game did.
But yeah, you're right.
Clinton's staff has done a solid job of managing expectations. "It'll be over by Super Tuesday!" "She'll win in Texas and Ohio!" "She'll make up the delegate deficit in Pennsylvania!" Yet somehow each failure, each time it becomes clearer that she cannot win, doesn't prevent her from carrying on. I don't get it, but she has done a good job on the expectations game.
I agree with Joe Strummer. Obama shouldn't have pretended that this was still a race.
This is especially silly when North Carolina is worth 50 more delegates than Indiana.
The subtext of the media narrative regarding NC is that the state's primary doesn't count for much because of all the dark-skinned people voting there. Instead the "key" battleground will be Indiana, where the media will work the whole "OMG-Obama-can't-win-the-six-pack vote" routine all over again.
1) As i noted, Hillary desperately needs to raise money -- so she started blowing the Israel Lobby billionaire dog whistle really hard yesterday -- hoping that Haim Saban, S Daniel Abraham and the other big money boys will notice that she's laid down and is begging for scraps:
"“I want the Iranians to know that if I’m the president, we will attack Iran,” she said. “In the next 10 years, during which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them.”
Ref: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/23/us/politics/23penn.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1&ref=politics
2) Why doesn't Hillary just use Ebay?
"And what am I bid for the 82 Airborne and the lives of 10,000 US soldiers? Going once, Going twice..."
3) Anyone still wondering why Haim Saban told Haaretz that he thought Hillary as US President would "be good for Israel"??
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/798292.html
"she doesn't get to arbitrarily decided which states matter."
Obama's campaign is the one that kept referring to Indiana as the "tie-breaker". Take your gripe up with Plouffe, not Clinton.
Don Williams:
Don't you think Saban and Abraham have already maxed out? I also have to wonder if they really raised 2.5 million last night. Nothing like throwing money away, is there?
Where have you been, Matt? The only states that matter are the ones Hillary wins or at least has a good chance of winning. Everybody knows that! Just as everybody knows that spending a lot of money and weeks of heavy campaigning, in order to win Pennsylvania by half the margin you would have won by if both candidates had just stayed home, is a game-changing victory.
As so often pointed out, Hillary-primary has the same rules as Calvinball.
The good news is that it appears we've hit a turning point in media coverage. Remember the Times endorsed Hillary. This is not not a big deal. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/23/opinion/23wed1.html?hp
All of this "make up the delegate deficit" stuff is so that political reporters like Tim F-ing Russert can have some reason to explain their continued present on my goddammned television once every couple of Tuesdays.
Any idiot with a calculator and the Democratic rulebook could've figured out back in mid-March that once Obama got 100 delegate lead, there was no way mathematically for Clinton to win. It was an impossibility, provided Obama was still a living, breathing candidate for her to win 75-25 in a bunch of states so that she could pick up the delegates she needed to.
Also, did anyone notice that Ron Paul and Mike Huckabee got combined about 25 percent of the Republican vote. I don't want to read into this more than it's worth: most Republicans who would've supported McCain, stayed home now that the nomination is over I guess.
But it does suggest McCain has not (and will never, at this point) solidify the Republican base the way he needs to in order to win.
That of course assumes that the Democrats don't self-destruct.
I for one welcome the return of "Those states don't matter!" jokes. The last 6 weeks have been far too earnest. Shallow, but earnest.
The good news is that it appears we've hit a turning point in media coverage. Remember the Times endorsed Hillary. This is not not a big deal. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/23/opinion/23wed1.html?hp
WHY DO YOU HATE AMERICA AND HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON SO MUCH MR MIGUEL IGLESIAS IS IT BECAUSE YOU ARE A TRAITOR I THINK SO OTHERWISE WHY WOULD YOU WANT A MUSLIM LIBERAL ELITE AMERICA-HATING TRAITOR LIKE BARRACK HUSSEIN OSAMA TO BE PRESIDENT OF A CHRISTIAN COUNTRY HE SHOULD RUN FOR PRESIDENT OF ISLAMLAND LOLLOLLOL AND MAYBE YOU SHOULD BE HIS RUNNING MATE MR MIGUEL IGLESIAS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The real test of Hilary's ability to get the media to buy into her framing is going to be WV and KY (if, God forbid, it goes that far). Those states are for her what AL, MS and LA were for Obama -- states in which one campaign has a huge demographic advantage, but which are not likely to be competitive in the fall. If she can get the media to treat big wins in those states as a bigger deal than big Obama wins in NC and OR, then, well, I'll lose my mind.
Re Joe Klein's Conscience's comment "Don't you think Saban and Abraham have already maxed out? "
------------
On direct donations, yes. On bundling the "voluntary" contributions of others, no.
Contributions from people who depend upon their good will in business relationships, for example.
Plus there's always the random heat-seeking 527 which doesn't have to identify its donors until the next quarter. Just ask Howard Dean about S Daniel Abraham and 527s.
See http://www.forward.com/articles/campaign-confidential-85/ -- scroll down to "Fat Contribution". Abraham actually gave $200,000 to that 527.
"LesbiansForHillary"? Is this group made up of the hot, sexy lesbians or is it all the big, angry, Rosie O'Donnell-looking lesbians?
Perhaps the Clinton campaign is still hoping to force the DNC to accept FL and MI as is at the convention. That plus a major superdelegate boost might be enough, but it would also amount to stealing the nomination. I wouldn't put it past her to try.
As i noted, Hillary desperately needs to raise money...
Why? Her and Bill made over $100 million in the past 7 years. If her campaign is truly viable, then she should have no problem putting up, say, $10 million of her own money. She could use it for matching donations for anybody willing to give in the next two weeks. Not a loan, but actual cash on the line.
If you're so confident and how the "tide has turned", Hillary, then why don't you put your money where your mouth is? It's not like losing $10 million would bankrupt you, or even change your lifestyle one iota.
Perhaps the Clinton campaign is still hoping to force the DNC to accept FL and MI as is at the convention. That plus a major superdelegate boost might be enough, but it would also amount to stealing the nomination. I wouldn't put it past her to try.
Is this group made up of the hot, sexy lesbians
I suspect it's made up of one less-clever-than-he-thinks male.
It's the "Republican black ops for dummies" group. The Republicans are desperate to keep this going, and every tiny bit of acrimony online helps that much more.
Have you guys seen this somewhere else? From electoral-vote.com:
Also, 94% of the Clinton voters thought she will be the nominee, despite most outside experts having serious doubts about that.
The statistics he cites before that are pretty outstanding, too, so I question the accuracy of this one. But if the one I quoted here is true, it says a lot about how ill-informed 94% of Clinton supporters are. It's one thing to want her to be the nominee, it's another to think that she will be the nominee at this point.
I find it preposterous to believe that "Hillary Rodham" would still be viable even to these people. The Clinton name carries a lot of weight. And there's lot of "low-info" voters out there.
Matt,
Saying that the Clinton campaign did a good job of managing expectations kind of lets the media off the hook, which they don't deserve.
The fact is that the media has repeatedly chosen to buy into the Clintons' spin on events. You can come up with your own reason, but the most likely is that they know this is the way to keep the race (and their ratings) going.
Of course she's going to try, Patrick, that's not even in question. She's made it clear as day. But I don't think the party bigwigs are stupid enough- no, not even in our beloved Dumbocratic Party- to kiss off their most reliable voting block- African-Americans- for a generation.
Mike -
I think people are harping on the media a little too much. It seems to me that the big media has let the campaigns know that they are willing to listen to the campaigns for direction. For instance, they don't go sniffing around too many places unless prompted by one of the campaigns.
So, under that logic, Obama's campaign has failed to steer the media away from Clinton's Calvinball. He needs to assert that "It's the delegates, stupid" to counter her "let's count... how many 55+ divorced women with 3 kids that live in Appalachia to decide who wins" approach.
She keeps pushing this popular vote thing - which disenfranchises the voters in those caucus states - and keeps insisting on counting Florida and Michigan - which disenfranchises the voters who listened when they were told that they wouldn't matter. And even then, she would still need the supers to overthrown the pledged delegate count, thereby disenfranchising EVERYBODY. I don't know if his campaign should start claiming that it's actually her that wants to disenfranchise people - but I certainly will.
The subtext of the media narrative regarding NC is that the state's primary doesn't count for much because of all the dark-skinned people voting there.
When the "dark-skinned people" start voting on the basis of something other than race, then the media narrative will treat their vote as something other than a foregone conclusion.
If Obama wins a majority of the white vote, NC will "matter".
I think even in Calvinball you have to change the rules as you're playing and not after the game.
The idiots who cry that Hillary changes the rules every day or that she decides what is important every day as she choses should face the fact that the objective remains to win.
She announced more than a year ago that she is in it to win it and that objective has not changed.
Only narrow-minded obama fans and Hillary haters could claim that she hasn't been consistant in that regard. Unrelentingly consistant. Stubbornly consistant. unrepentent and consistant.
But like a chess game or basketball game, like a war or like saving for retirement, one changes one's approach and one's strategies and one's milestones and short term plans throughout as the conditions and relative results change.
This is legitimate: an intelligent person tinkers as the conditions changes. The game changes constantly as the game constantly changes. Climbing a mountain the weather will change as the altitude and terrain and effort required shift so you dress in layers and adjust constantly. quoting spin that addressed situations as they existed months ago (it is all about the delegates) months later is like wearing a coat in may because it was cold in feburary AND YET playing gotcha in such idiotic ways seems like the main witless game of obama's on-line supporters.
So only idiots and those who hate or stubborn fools who can't handle shifting fortunes use her changing and adjusting as evidence of a character flaw or lack of a core center.
And as I have been posting for months, no one with so many delagates would ever get out. Myopic obama supporters thinking only of their own story line make up shit about her poking holes in his candidacy. Most of the holes in his candiacy are of his own making. Hillary didn't make him spend 20 years with wright, didn't make him bring all this idiotic flag pin stuff upon himself, didn't make him say stupid stupid shit in Calif about religion and guns: he did that. Obama supporters and third party crazies and hillary haters (quite a coalition he's put together!) want to discard all that stuff but these were all self imposed wounds by Obama. His campaign's unfortunate decision early on to villify hillary and bill (say anything do anything was his dog whistle signal to hillary and bill haters way back in november) to attract hillary haters and irrational third party dean types who piss away money on the internet at the drop of a hat means that the gloves were off long ago. She's not trying to be the dalai lama or mother theresa and when he went full tilt negative early on with these constructions she had no reason to be a saint or just stand by.
She fights because she said she would. it is part and parcel of who she said she is, who we know her to be. That may be something some or many hate about her but it is entirely consistant with what we all knew about her 15 months ago.
she has every right and hopefully every intention to take it to the convention. The authentic debate about who is our standard bearer as a party is essential and appropriate.
an artificial end to suit the need of obama supporters for an easier road or for a cinderella storyline ignores the terrain and conditions AND fully half of our party.
C'mon Matt, you understand why Indiana's results will matter more than North Carolina.
African Americans aren't going to be thirty percent of the electorate anywhere in November.
Of course conservatives are muxing around in the Democratic primaries. NRO and RedState are proudly claiming that Operation Chaos struck again (as it had in Ohio and Texas) to carry Hillary over the line. Which explains the 3 percent of Hillary's voters who intend to vote for McCain in the general.
I just hope they realize that if she makes it to the general they may have to live with her in office for the next 4-8 years. Law of unintended consequences and such.
Undecided,
Do you want to know who you're going to decide for? Or would you like to surprise yourself, if no one else?
Of course conservatives are muxing around in the Democratic primaries. NRO and RedState are proudly claiming that Operation Chaos struck again (as it had in Ohio and Texas) to carry Hillary over the line. Which explains the 3 percent of Hillary's voters who intend to vote for McCain in the general.
I just hope they realize that if she makes it to the general they may have to live with her in office for the next 4-8 years. Law of unintended consequences and such.
C'mon Matt, you understand why Indiana's results will matter more than North Carolina.
African Americans aren't going to be thirty percent of the electorate anywhere in November.
By that reasoning, Pennsylvania shouldn't count because no state in November is going to consist of an electorate that is 100% Democratic.
When the "dark-skinned people" start voting on the basis of something other than race
Don't be an idiot. What percentage of the black vote went for Sharpton or Braun last time? Black voters have voted for white Democrats at far greater rates than white voters have.
Got a link on that Plouffe tie-breaker thing, Petey?
Not that I don't...ummm....trust you or anything.
When the "dark-skinned people" start voting on the basis of something other than race, then the media narrative will treat their vote as something other than a foregone conclusion. If Obama wins a majority of the white vote, NC will "matter".
Nice to hear someone come out so directly and say that only "regular" votes count, eh?
So of course the white people in say PA don't vote AT ALL on the basis of race, do they? Hillary's advantage there has NOTHING to do with race. And of course it's just a coincidence that Hillary does better with women than with men, right?
Always good to see people wearing their bigotry on their sleeves.
Michael C. -
Wow, you've jumped the shark. Few of us doubt that she's in it to win it, as you claim. That doesn't mean that she hasn't tried to convince people that there are other metrics to measure this race by, however. In that sense, she does keep "changing the rules".
I see your "no one with this many delegates would get out" and raise you "no one with such a small chance of winning should stay in".
His wounds are "self-imposed", but she lends an air of legitimacy to frankly illegitimate arguments when she makes them herself. She's stayed away from the flag-pin thing, but that's about the only thing she's stayed away from. The best example of her destructive behavior is her poking at the Ayers thing - her hands aren't "clean" on the WU, either, yet she exploited it.
She does have a right to take it to the convention, but she doesn't have much of a real reason. The chances of her being nominated are so small that they aren't worth the damage she's causing. The ideas she claims to hold true to her are very similar to Obama's. The party has spoken, and it really isn't "half" of the party, anyway. Her violent spasms into the ground are reminiscent of an exorcism. She has lost. Her campaign has been fueled by (A) name recognition (B) identity politics (something Obama has relied on as well) and (C) the Haim Sabans and David Geffens of the world. The well is drying up, and it's time for her to do the responsible thing and plan for an exit.
She really did a marvelous job of spinning away those defeats in between March 4 (TX/OH) and Pennsylvania. Even I, an avowed junkie, had to look up the primary calendar to remember that Wyoming and Mississippi voted AFTER March 4.
There's so much wrong with Michael C.'s screed above I don't know where to begin, but I'll start here:
The game changes constantly as the game constantly changes
Obama supporters are not upset about changing tactics, but about Hillary's campaign trying to re-write the rules or change the metrics for judging the outcome of the contest in the middle of the game. It would be like if we were playing basketball and I said, well I would have won if we counted all the baskets that went in while I was traveling or committing an offensive foul. This is completely different from going from man to zone.
I'll leave manufactured media controversies such as Rev. Wright and flag pins for others, but this is hilarious:
irrational third party dean types who piss away money on the internet at the drop of a hat
Would these be the same irrational internet donor types who last night donated money to a campaign that has no mathematical chance of winning and who currently owes nearly $5 million to Mark Penn? Glass houses, throwing stones, etc.
As a partisan Democrat who happens to support Obama over Hillary (though I supported Edwards early on) my dismay at her remaining in the race is that she constantly pushes narratives that may be damaging to our party's nominee in the fall. If Hillary had an insurmountable mathematical lead and Obama continued campaigning by pointing out that there was no difference between Clinton and McCain, you can bet your ass I'd be outraged and demanding that he bow out of the race.
Of course conservatives are muxing around in the Democratic primaries. NRO and RedState are proudly claiming that Operation Chaos struck again (as it had in Ohio and Texas) to carry Hillary over the line. Which explains the 3 percent of Hillary's voters who intend to vote for McCain in the general.
I just hope they realize that if she makes it to the general they may have to live with her in office for the next 4-8 years. Law of unintended consequences and such.
Sure, by going along with Clinton's argument that only states she can win should count, the mainstream media is proving that it is either woefully ignorant or largely corrupt (I vote for both).
But the good news is that it appears that the mainstream media is also pretty much powerless. For all their reinforcement of Clinton's preferred narratives, Clinton has not been able to change the fundamental dynamics of the contest, and that is why she is going to lose.
She does have a right to take it to the convention, but she doesn't have much of a real reason.
And once the primaries are done, if she still has no realistic path to the nomination (which she won't), the Dems in power have every right to tell her that there will be negative consequences if she does take it to the convention. Loss of a key committee position or two comes to mind.
I disagree with the first post. Indiana matters immensely. A split on May 6th does nothing, but if Obama can win both states it creates another opportunity for super-delegates to declare support, party leaders to urge a swift conclusion, etc. Especially because Indiana will be cast as another Rust Belt working class stronghold, and the storyline could be that with some distance from Wright, Bittergate, etc, Obama did just fine among these voters.
A 2/2 showing on May 6th is the last best chance to end this before the convention.
If Obama wins a majority of the white vote, NC will "matter".
Obama has won a majority of the white vote in plenty of places. What's so special about NC?
African Americans aren't going to be thirty percent of the electorate anywhere in November.
True, but then again come November Hillary Clinton won't be 50% of the voting options available to Democrats. She'll be 0%.
Just because majorities of white Democrats in some states prefer Clinton to Obama doesn't mean they'll all stay home or vote McCain when Obama's the nominee.
Of course, some who claim to be Hillary supporters will be *urging* them to stay home and vote McCain if Obama's the nominee... but if they do that, then they're not actually Democrats, and concern trolling from such people is by definition bad-faith argument best ignored.
By the way, it is wishful thinking that somehow Indiana will prove crucial in ending Clinton's campaign. The best proof to the contrary is Wisconsin.
Wisconsin is a Rust Belt state, it had a primary, it doesn't have a disproportionate number of black people, it is a clear swing state (unlike Indiana in fact), and Clinton contested Wisconsin as much as she possibly could. Then Obama trounced her in Wisconsin, and it somehow disappeared.
So if Wisconsin can disappear, why not Indiana? Heck, once they made Iowa disappear, I knew that any state could be disappeared.
No Democrat has won a majority of the white vote, or even 40% of the white vote, since LBJ. People who pretend Obama has to start winning the white vote are racists. Plain and simple. Black votes matter to them, but black candidates do not.
LFC -
The big white elephant in the room, to me, is the ramifications of her continuing to campaign. I'm a bit unsettled at the idea, but I think that there could be a Lamont campaign in her direction come time for her re-election as Senator. Lieberman's ousting was justifiable, as he continued to support the war (and still does). Are Hillary's actions deserving of undermining her in New York? I'm not sure who could play the Lamont role - Spitzer could have if he wasn't buying whores all the time. I think if she ends up ruining the general for Obama, she deserves to be ousted.
I'd be glad to see her out of the Senate after this, to be honest. I'm just not sure if it's worth it to try.
You're wrong, Matt.
As a competition, this thing has been over for a while. As a charade, it's going to go on as long as Hillary gets to set the rules and nobody pays attention to the fact that she has zero chance of winning. The facts haven't intruded on her Theatre of Cruelty before, so why start now?
Like the surge, proclaiming it a failure based on its own stated terms of success is wrong; this whole exercise is a way to buy time, appealing to the feral rubes in the media and the populace with histrionic melodrama, waiting for a miracle to happen.
It is amazing how Hillary supporters feel free to ascribe every weakness she has to the sexism of the electorate, but then go ape-shit the moment you even mention race.
If a vitriolic response to Clinton is the result of sexism, then theres no way to argue that a vitriolic response to Obama isn't the result of racism.
That is, unless you're just trying to slander people who disagree with you
By the way, it would be nice if people noticed that if you look at states outside of the South and west of Appalachia, Obama has done just fine among white voters.
And it would even be nice for white Democrats in the South and Appalachia if people noticed that Bill Clinton in particular is extremely popular among those people, and that Clinton has had the support of the Democratic machine in East Coast urban areas.
But sadly, a lot of people would rather paint white people across the country as racists rather than note Clinton's white voter advantage is limited to regions where Bill Clinton is very popular or she has machine support.
I really believe a lot of Clinton's scorched-earch murder-suicide behavior here is because Obama pisses off The Big Dog everytime he equates the Clinton years with the Bush years...
Obama did it originally to rile up The Big Dog and get him slip up -- and it worked brilliantly early on...But at this point it is truly pissing off Clinton supporters, and The Big Dog would rather drive us all off a cliff than to lose to a guy who never gives him any credit...
Obama has played this beautifully to this point, but at a certain point he's going to have to start giving The Big Dog his props...I don't know how he (Obama) should go about doing this actually, but he is going to have to...The Big dog has already pulled the steering wheel off his car and is waving it at Obama in this game of political chicken...Does anybody have any ideas? Making Clinton the VP is a possibility, but I'm lost on this...
By that reasoning, Pennsylvania shouldn't count because no state in November is going to consist of an electorate that is 100% Democratic.
Democrats aren't voting in a 90 percent bloc for a candidate. But if they were, then yes, you would need to half those results in projecting the general election.
And don't get hung up on skin color. The point is that Obama has been buoyed by a demographic slice that will not be that significant in November.
DTM - I think that's a fair point; the racist thing has probably been played up a bit too much, and it ignores the identity politics of the AA vote for Obama (which has probably become polarized as a result of the media play on Bill Clinton's Jesse Jackson comments).
The real story here is how HRC continues to skate by on being a Clinton.
Let's assume that in early June, all of the currently uncommitted supers announce, and enough of them go with Obama to get him to the magic number. Would Hillary drop out or would she say "Well, I have two months to change their minds" and keep going?
Wait, wouldn't that be MATEO Yglesias, "Lesbians"ForHillary? Isn't "Miguel" more or less "Michael?"
Troll grade: FAIL.
"Obama has won a majority of the white vote in plenty of places. What's so special about NC?:
Simple. With Obama at the top of the ticket and 100,000+ new registrants on the rolls (almost all Obama-driven), North Carolina stands an excellent chance of voting Democratic in the fall.
Every state level candidate of any significance thinks so; even though the yards and bumpers bearing Hillary signs (way outnumbered by Obama signs) tend to also feature signs for Beverley Purdue (centrist candidate for governor), Purdue can read a poll. Like almost every other NC politician, she joined her opponent in endorsing Obama a month ago or thereabouts. The endorsements have been all but unanimous, and huge African - American turnout combined with Obama's doing relatively well among all voter groups here? NC is going for the Democrats. Add Virginia to that list, and show me a way that McCain wins; can't be done, even with Ohio and, yes, even with PA (though frankly that's unlikely once they get a load of his economic 'plan').
Should the Bill & Hillary show play through June 2008, as predicted, it could damage the DNC. As Howard Dean is beginning to suspect, Hillary could put the party asunder. I hoped Pennsylvanians would send the Clintons a clear edict; take the money and run – but they didn’t. There’s a strong case to be made against Hillary; trouble is, nobody’s making it. Between Sean Hannity’s demonizing of Barack Obama, and Frank Luntz’s crowing over Hillary’s Pennsylvania coronation, I’m beginning to rethink FOX NEWS. Seems everyone knows Hillary suffers from ED (excessive dishonesty), but before the primary nobody even knew Hillary had roots in Penn. Voters know exactly squat about Hillary. Hillary has long treated working class Americans as a species apart. I’ll forego the ironies, but ignore Hillary at your own peril: http://theseedsof9-11.com
Fred Bellemore -
He gives Bill credit; he says they were good years. I think he does this to appeal to Clinton fans, of course. But I think you're referring to the times Obama blasts the "politics of the 80s and 90s and the past few years." Which is valid, I think; is Hillary not displaying them in their glorious shades of black and blue?
Speaking of, why isn't it ever noted that Clinton only won in 92 because of Perot? I always see these "We need another Clinton to clean up another Bush!" banners - as if that's a valid train of thought. They conveniently ignore that Bush would have won if it weren't for Perot. It's not like Bill Clinton was some Democratic messiah who saved us all from Nixon-Reagan-Bush with his vast political skills.
For everyone who's fretting about the drawn out primary, this post by Jay Cost of HorseRaceBlog is worth reading:
I think the primary battle has actually been quite helpful for the Democrats. It has exposed weaknesses in both campaigns that might not have been identified until October. This has given both an opportunity to strengthen themselves...The Obama campaign has learned several important lessons about "elitism." It has learned that Republicans are quite attracted to this idea. This is a good thing. Now it knows how the Republicans will come after him. Furthermore, thanks to last week's debate, it also knows it must have a better response ready for the GOP. Suppose Obama had won Texas and Ohio, knocking Hillary out. Flash forward to the fall debates, when Obama is asked about William Ayers. Not having the benefit of having been asked in April, he gives a tepid answer like the one he actually gave last week. This time, his debate opponent is not Hillary Clinton, whose spouse pardoned members of the Weather Underground, but John McCain, who was in the Hanoi Hilton when they were engaging in terrorism. Obama would have been in much more jeopardy.
socctty said... The big white elephant in the room, to me, is the ramifications of her continuing to campaign. I'm a bit unsettled at the idea, but I think that there could be a Lamont campaign in her direction come time for her re-election as Senator.
I don't think that will happen. The place where it could hurt her is if she decides to run for governor. After her performance of the past few months, no one would hesitate to challenge her.
Let's assume that in early June, all of the currently uncommitted supers announce, and enough of them go with Obama to get him to the magic number. Would Hillary drop out or would she say "Well, I have two months to change their minds" and keep going?
No Democrat has won a majority of the white vote, or even 40% of the white vote, since LBJ.
Apples and oranges, obviously. I'm venture a guess every Democratic nominee since LBJ has won a majority of the white vote in the primaries.
The problem is when Obama's 40-45 percent erodes to 30-35 percent in the general.
The elephant I see in the room is that with six weeks and lots of money Obama still got hammered in a very important swing state. A generic Democrat simply can't count on PA. Gun to my head Obama loses PA to McCain, Hillary wins it.
LFC - Hmm... I've thought about the governor thing too but the only reasons I can think of her doing that would be to (A) escape a hard fight for her Senate seat and/or (B) to bone up on her executive creds for another Presidential run. She'll be 68 in 2016, though, and 8 years in politics is forever. There's no telling who she'd have to face then.
So it makes me think she'll just rest on her Senate seat and rely on incumbency.
I don't like the idea of punishing people for not "falling into line", but I really don't like her one bit either and would gladly donate to viable progressive candidate in a primary against her. I guess I draw the distinction by telling myself that it's not that she's not falling into line, but rather that she's deliberately causing political damage to the presumptive nominee.
If Hilary does somehow manage to win the Democratic nomination, she's going to have a real tough time in the general election In addition to her own baggage, she'll have to deal with (1) an infuriated African-American vote (2) getting money & support from a Democratic activist base that she just trashed.
Undecided -
That's a bunch of crap; the campaigns have known for months that Obama was going to lose Pennsylvania to her. She won, and she should be credited for it, I suppose. But let's be honest: she got by on her last name and a media that largely presented her as still having more than a snowball's chance in hell. The contest in Pennsylvania, from the Obama camp's perspective, was never about winning it. It was about preventing her from racking up a large delegate gain. In that sense, it succeeded. Of course he would have loved to win, but it was never anything more than a wish that hinged on her doing something incredibly stupid.
There's really no reason to think that if you drop in McCain in Clinton's place, that he'll win Pennsylvania over Obama. In the end, all those people that voted (sans a few Op. Chaos members) are Democrats. There's every reason for Clinton supporters to claim that they'll take their ball and go home if she's not the nominee; it's one step removed from holding their votes and the Democratic party hostage.
It isn't "arbitrary." Pennsylvania matters more than North Carolina because it's a state the Democrats need to win in order to win the White House, while North Carolina is a state they simply will not win (outside of the fantasies of Obamabots). It is also matters because the demographics Clinton won over in PE are the same that Democrats need in order to win a national election. Indiana matters for the same reason. If Obama can win by 15% in NC by winning a 80% margin of the African American vote (in a state where those voters are a third of the primary electorate) that hardly says anything at all about his chances in a general election in NC, let alone the USA.
The dynamics of the race have been pretty clear for a while now, and PA didn't change them:
(1) The race is going to keep going through early June. Obama's last chance to stop it earlier was Ohio/Texas; once Clinton won Ohio by a lot, and won the popular vote in Texas marginally, it was clear that the race wouldn't be over until June.
(2) There are a million reasons to believe that, absent a huge change in the dynamics of the race, the supers are simply waiting till the end of the primaries to disproportionately announce for Obama.
(3) Given even lackluster performance from here on out, that will give Obama the victory - as long as we don't count Michigan and Florida.
(4) If the post primary math still gives Hillary a chance with Michigan and Florida delegates seated, she will take this to the convention.
(5) Thus, in order to wrap this up in June, Obama needs to win enough delegates (pledged and Supers so that he wins even with the Michigan and Florida delegates counted.
Will he do that? Close call. If he does, he is going to be favored against McCain. If he doesn't, say hello to president senile warmonger.
Hillary, whatever her merits in the abstract, does not have a June win scenario. Here only remaining path to victory, unlikely as it is, is an ugly convention battle. Which, win or lose, will leave the party in tatters.
The only states that count are the small ones that Obama won, with an even smaller number of voters using caucuses, or the larger states with significant black populations that voted in lockstep for Obama. What's the biggest state Obama has won in an actual election?
...and Tim K shows up with his wonderful some-are-more-equal-than-others argument, claiming that white Democrats won't vote for Obama but black Democrats will vote for Clinton. Of course, the truth is that by and large the Democratss will vote for the Democrat. Pennsylvania was a closed primary even, so if you're going to hype up Pennsylvania, at least that into consider that the independent vote - which will be present in the General election - was suppressed.
It's the delegates, stupid. They represent the voters! What Obama's delegate lead shows is that Democrats and Democrat-leaning indies (when allowed to express their preference) prefer Obama to Clinton.
You can sit here and argue in one breath that white voters won't choose Obama, and in another claim they aren't racist, and then in another breath claim that black voters will go for Clinton. Until you're consistent with your message, no one will listen to you.
And claiming that Obama can't win North Carolina is a self-fulfilling prophecy. The state went 56/44 for Bush in 2004, when Bush ran against someone who had a weak position against the war since they voted for it in the first place. Since then, the economy has gotten worse and the war has gone even further down the tubes. If either of these candidates is going to compete in NC, it is clearly Obama. And even if he doesn't win in NC, competing there does three things: establishes a stronger Democratic presence there in the future, carries Dem. candidates for office there to victory, and forces the GOP to spend money they don't have there.
But please, ignore reason and keep claiming that because Hillary won a specific demographic in one state in a closed primary that she's the best candidate for president. Sooner or later reason will beat you into submission.
Let me see if I get this right -- Obama has lost the popular vote to Hillary in NY, CA, TX, FL, OH, PA -- and his Wyoming- and Iowa-type wins are the ones Obamabots keep fixating on? Can Obama even win the primary without resorting to superdelegates?
That's a excellent point, LarryM. The fact that Hilary can't get the nomination before the Convention means she has less time to develop a general election strategy against McCain, less time to develop her organization, & a more fatigued staff. It also gives her less time to woo back pissed-off Obama voters.
Steve D, you lost any credibility when you mentioned Florida.
BTW, how would you expect Hillary to perform in IL, CO, WA, VA, or WI? Don't those states count?
Steve D. - Clearly you're a troll, but I'll feel you nonetheless.
"Can Obama even with the primary without resorting to superdelegates?"
You must mean a scenario that is very similar to... THE CURRENT SITUATION! "Obamabots" aren't fixating on one state, like Hillary supporters are; this time it's PA.
The Hillraisers' basis of evidence seems to be a mash-up of select swing states (PA, Ohio, conveniently forgetting CO or IA, etc), states like Texas that we've been told "don't matter" since they are red states, states that no one competed in like Florida because we were told they wouldn't be counted, and states that presumably also don't matter because they're safe Democrat states, like New York and California.
There's really no reason to think that if you drop in McCain in Clinton's place, that he'll win Pennsylvania over Obama.
You don't know Pennsylvania. I live here. Few PA Dems and Reps have reservations about voting the other way. Our governorship has alternated between parties for almost fifty years. Senate seats have leaned slightly towards the GOP. Republicans control the State Senate.
Obama will not beat McCain in Pa. Probably another double digit loss. He'll have to make those electoral votes up somewhere else.
Obama pisses off The Big Dog everytime he equates the Clinton years with the Bush years...
I agree-- and I still think that the nineties were a decade of great good luck (economic & foreigh-policy) for Bill, with a consistent record of missed opportunities and pervasive failures as far as ideology went-- but lately I've been wondering how Bill would have responded to Obama had Hillary not been running. Would he have muscled his way into the campaign as a mentor, whose 1992 campaign was finally being brought to fruition in the new century, or would he have been jealous of this younger, more interesting, more disciplined version of himself? Obama's not as lip-bitingly empathetic as Bill was in his heyday, but we've learned about the pitfalls of those transient emotional connections of Bill's the hard way. And Obama never needed a Hillary to keep him in line & on message the way Bill obviously did (and still does, unfortunately). Bill's not dumb; he knows Obama's displacing him, and may not need to sell his soul to survive against the GOP the way Bill did.
Anyway, I find it interesting.
In addition to her own baggage, she'll have to deal with (1) an infuriated African-American vote (2) getting money & support from a Democratic activist base that she just trashed.
She assumes we'll all be desperate enough to avoid a McCain presidency that we can be guilted into action, I guess. Personally, I'm too old to play-- or really, to be played by-- the desperation game, so she can play chicken with the party's base all she wants, but she'd have way more to lose than I do. But that's just speaking for myself and from a McCain state; obviously she'd probably be right wrt the majority of those groups. Whether it'd be enough... who knows?- but I guess she's willing to take that risk.
simply because Hillary Clinton is hopelessly far behind in North Carolina doesn't mean that Indiana is the only May 6 primary that matters. - Matt
No, neither one matters. Obama is the candidate. Please wake me after the convention.
Re Undecided's comment "You don't know Pennsylvania. I live here. Few PA Dems and Reps have reservations about voting the other way. ...Obama will not beat McCain in Pa. Probably another double digit loss"
----------------
I live in Pennsylvania also and I think you are full of shit.
People have seen what 8 years of Republican control of the White House and both Houses of Congress have done --and they're fed up. Only a Republican would fail to see the CONTEMPT many voters now have for the Republican party.
I've seen it locally -- in which the once rock solid Republican Main Line has become more and more Democratic -- with two long time Republican Congressmen losing to Democrats in the last election, another one hanging on by the skin of his teeth, and our long time Republican State Representative deciding to not even run for reelection in November.
Tim K,
If the simplest path to 270 electoral votes is to win all of the states Kerry won and then pick up one or two others that total at least 18 electoral votes, why is Pennsylvania a state the Democrats "have to" win more so than Wisconsin, Minnesota, Washington and Maryland (states Obama won by larger margins than Clinton won PA), or Oregon (a state Obama will likely win).
Clinton's argument seems to be that she can be expected to hold onto all of Kerry's states, and then win Florida or Ohio to put herself over the top. But why is she more likely to hold onto the Kerry states than Obama? Obama has won 11 of the 18 Kerry states (including D.C.) that have held contests, with Oregon another likely Obama win, and Michigan a seeming toss-up.
Obama has many more opportunities to pick up 18 electoral votes because he seems more viable in certain states that went for Bush in 2004. Any one of the following combinations would do the trick:
VA (13) and IA (7)
VA (13) and MO (11)
VA (13) and CO (9)
CO (9) and MO (11)
MO (11) and IA (7)
I also know Pennsylvania, and Undecided is either ignorant or just lying.
In the general election in PA, the real swing voters won't be the Democrats who just gave Clinton a narrow win over Obama. The real swing voters will be independents and moderate Republicans in the suburbs of Pittsburgh and Philly. And what Undecided either doesn't know or is deliberately concealing is that those real swing voters in PA do NOT like Hillary Clinton.
Now it is possible they may hold their noses and vote for her anyway, because they are still pretty fed up with the Bush Administration and the Iraq War. But it is also entirely possible that Clinton will drive enough of those people to McCain that she loses PA, and thus loses the election (because unlike Obama, she has no plausible scenario in which she can lose PA and win the election).
And of course the closed primary just held in PA tells you absolutely nothing about all this, since those real swing voters were not allowed to vote. Moreover, the GOP is doing everything it can to hammer Obama while ignoring Clinton (for the moment), all because they know that the deep dislike for Clinton among the real swing voters in states like PA will give them a shot to win an election they should lose in a landslide. So, the head-to-head polls also tell you very little about what would really happen in PA if the Democrats made the mistake of nominating Clinton.
But fortunately for the Democrats, that won't happen.
Undecided thinks everyone is as racist as he is. What a shock. Maybe he and Petey should start a 'Black people are good for votes, but not good enough for candidates' club.
No Democrat has won a majority of the white vote, or even 40% of the white vote, since LBJ. People who pretend Obama has to start winning the white vote are racists. Plain and simple. Black votes matter to them, but black candidates do not.
Posted by Soullite | April 23, 2008 11:23 AM
The simple truth, simply stated, and worth repeating.
I read a comment about an average, older, Pennsylvania voter who said he'd vote for a one-armed orangutan over any Republican. I don't think Obama will lose the state.
And why do you guys legitimize Tim K. when he tries to break down America? The guy is Canadian, he doesn't have a fucking clue what Pennsylvania or North Carolina are like.
55:
Yes, I'm trying to "break down" America by trying to convince Democrats to nominate a winner instead of a loser so a Republican isn't in the White House for the next four years.
Brian:
Obama isn't likely to win Virginia and Colorado will be very close. Missouri is not a good state for Obama, as he will be overly dependent on historic African American turnout is St Louis, while performing dismally in the rest of the state.
DTM:
The "real" swing voters this November aren't going to be blacks and students. Those groups are going to turn out and vote for any Democrat, just as they did for John Kerry in 2004. A Democrat needs to do well enough with blue-collar Whites and White women in order to tie or come close to breaking even with Whites overall. The victory margin then comes from blacks and Hispanic voters. Of course Hillary Clinton would carry the vast majority of the African American vote. Turnout would be a bit lower, and the margin would be more like John Kerry, but they aren't going to all stay home. Yet, Obama's stronger AA turnout is not going to help him win West Virginia or Kentucky, and may not be enough to win Ohio or Missouri. It may not even be enough to hold on to Pennsylvania and Michigan. It's almost certain that Obama is going to under-perform with white women (overall), and especially 'downscale' white women and single women, and with lower income white men.
The choice is between which coalition one thinks will bring electoral success this November:
Blacks, students, whites with post-graduate degrees, and democratic-leaning independents.
OR
White women, seniors, Catholics, Hispanics, and blue-collar white men.
Of course Hillary Clinton would carry the vast majority of the African American vote. Turnout would be a bit lower, and the margin would be more like John Kerry, but they aren't going to all stay home
I think you're underestimating the alienation on the part of Black voters over the white establishment taking the nomination away from Obama. Of course, "they aren't going to all stay home" if Hilary gets the nomination, but a signifigant portion of them would - just look at what African-American bloggers are saying about Hilary.
There's also the fact that Hilary going to have to deal with a very alienated core of liberal activists (and her recent comments about MoveOn don't make it any easier). Who's going to give her money, work the phone banks, go door-to-door, etc?
Finally, while Obama is in position to wrap the nomination by June, there's no way Hilary wins before August. That not only makes it harder to repair relations with the Democratic base, it takes away time to develop a general-election strategy & organization against McCain.
Peter H:
I agree that liberal activists are a problem for Clinton. As far as I'm concerned MoveOn, Daily Kos, and the rest of that activist core are a destructive force in the Democratic party that will not be satisfied until they transform it into a European-style, ideologically left-wing political party. The reason the Clintons have been successful politically is because they know where the centre of the American political spectrum is, and that is where elections are won.
Obama is only in a position to "wrap up" the nomination in June is Hillary drops out or if enough superdelegates endorse him. He cannot get there without one of those two things happening. And candidates don't tend to drop out when they are still winning major primaries and raising millions of dollars in contributions. That would be a first in the modern history of primaries (Kennedy or Hart certainly did not do that).
Tim K,
Among the many things that I could point out that are wrong with your argument, probably the simplest is that real swing voters aren't voting in closed primaries. And probably the second-simplest is that the country does not end in Appalachia anymore, but has actually expanded considerably farther west in the last 200 or so years.
But I agree with the other poster: there really isn't much point to demonstrating what is wrong with your arguments.
DTM:
The reason you claim flaws in my argument instead of actually demonstrating them is because if you tried it would simply show how blindly faithful you are in Barack Obama despite evidence to the contrary.
Of course the actual voters who vote in closed primaries (or most any primary, much less caucuses) are not true swing voters. The point is that the type of voters who have voted for Clinton share more characteristics (age, race, sex, religion, region) than those who voted for Obama.
As for the undeniable fact that country does not end in Appalachia anymore, I would point out that by the most generous estimate there are are a total of 63 electoral votes west of Appalachia that will be competitive this November (WA, OR, WI, MN, CO, NM, IA and NV) and where the argument can be made that Obama has an advantage relative to Clinton. Missouri is the only other competitive state west of Appalachia and there Clinton has at least as good a chance of carrying it, if not better. As for Appalachia itself, it includes competitive states that accounts 65 electoral votes where Clinton has a better chance than Obama (OH, PN, TN, WV, KT). Add to that list Arkansas and Florida with their 33 votes and your electoral vote argument for Obama goes out the window, even if you add NH and VA to the list.
I realize it drives you absolutely bananas that anyone can think differently from you about electoral math and still have a valid point of view that may be correct, but that's your own problem.
I agree that liberal activists are a problem for Clinton. As far as I'm concerned MoveOn, Daily Kos, and the rest of that activist core are a destructive force in the Democratic party that will not be satisfied until they transform it into a European-style, ideologically left-wing political party. The reason the Clintons have been successful politically is because they know where the centre of the American political spectrum is, and that is where elections are won.
Maybe, but Clinton was definitely helped by huge voter enthusiasm among Democrats in 1992 & 1996. Say what you want about the liberal activists, but it's certainly going to be more difficult to win a close election without their financial & organizational support.
Obama is only in a position to "wrap up" the nomination in June is Hillary drops out or if enough superdelegates endorse him.
Well, I think that's what going to happen: enough superdelegates will endorse Obama after the primaries finish in June, making it mathematically impossible for Hilary to win the nomination.
And candidates don't tend to drop out when they are still winning major primaries and raising millions of dollars in contributions. That would be a first in the modern history of primaries (Kennedy or Hart certainly did not do that).
I actually happen to think the drawn-out primary has been a blessing in disguise for Obama, since it's exposed weakness & potential Republican attack lines (elitism, William Ayres) that he can much better deal with now than if they came out in the fall. That being said, I think it will be damaging for whomever wins the nomination if the campaign drags on until the convention in August.
Tim K,
Again, I will select just two points for ridicule (not because I couldn't do more, but because you aren't worth the effort).
First, I will note again the one characteristic all current Clinton voters, and indeed all current Obama voters, share in common is that they are voters in Democratic primaries and caucuses. If you can't figure out why that is a wee bit of a problem for your arguments, you need to think harder.
Second, you list Kentucky (getting its abbreviation wrong--it is KY, not KT) as competitive. Bush beat Kerry by 61-38 in Kentucky. If Kentucky meets your standard for likely competitiveness, you are going to need a much longer list.
The reason the Clintons have been successful politically is because they know where the centre of the American political spectrum is, and that is where elections are won.
And they keep helping the GOP move that center to the right, which I guess works for their electoral ambitions, but is just a long, slow death for the Democratic Party. I know you don't have any stake in there being a semi-civilized, rational political party with any power in the US, but some of us are fed up with the giant scam that is DLC/GOP politics. Cowards and manipulators follow the voters; leaders lead them.
Maybe, but Clinton was definitely helped by huge voter enthusiasm among Democrats in 1992 & 1996.
Well, that was then, and this is now-- high-info voters aren't quite as fond of the Clintons as they used to be, and must now be used only as an ATM, if that.
It would almost be interesting-- if gut-wrenchingly sad-- to watch the conservative Dems grasp power again for a brief period, only to lose it again once the GOP regroups.
Re DTM's comment "And of course the closed primary just held in PA tells you absolutely nothing about all this, since those real swing voters were not allowed to vote."
--------------
True. But I've had several people in my neighborhood , who could not vote in the Primary because they were registered as Independents or Republicans , tell me that they intend to vote for Obama in November.
I saw several news reports a few weeks ago arguing that blacks in Philly would vote for Obama but that the lily white Main Line would vote for Hillary.
As I posted a few days ago, that did not match what I was seeing during canvassing, the Paoli Speech, etc and my impressions turned out to be right. Obama beat Hillary in Chester County and Delaware County 55 to 45.
The reason why those numbers will also be characteristic of independent and cross-over Republican votes is that many registered Republicans here on the Main Line vote Democratic in the General Election. It drives outside political consultants --new to the area --crazy.
The reason is that , historically, the Main Line was a Republican machine and new residents were advised by their neighbors that they should Register as Republicans even if they voted Democratic -- in order to avoid harassment on property assessments, taxes, and building permits.
Those days are fading fast but their legacy on the voting rolls remains.
DTM:
Well I guess the phone company people will come arrest me for getting a state abbreviation wrong... you're about as petty as they come.
If it's an error to make any equation between Democratic primary voters and general election voters then it's wrong when anyone does it. Such as when Obama supporters claim that he will win over independents because he wins over democratic primary voters who identify as independents. The general election pool of independents is at least twice as large as the one Obama is currently doing well in. Obviously any attempt to translate primary support to general election support is inexact and prone to error, but it's all we have to go on at this juncture.
Kentucky (according to Survey USA, the most reliable pollster this cycle so far) Clinton is out-performing Obama in Kentucky, while not beating McCain, just as Obama is out-performing Clinton in Virginia, while not beating McCain. If you think Virginia is truly competitive for Democrats this year then you cannot call Kentucky non-competitive simply because Obama candidacy is dead on arrival there.
Peter:
I think your analysis is probably correct about the superdelegates (or at least enough of them) endorsing Obama in June to convince Clinton to pack it in. This is really becoming a Hobson's choice for the Democratic party: nominate a clearly flawed and inexperienced candidate who become the latest incarnation of Democratic loses from McGovern and Dukakis to Kerry, or nominate a political brawler who knows how to win elections by appealing to the political centre, but tearing the party apart in the process.
There is no easy answer.
Tim K,
I think Hilary can beat McCain (as can Obama), but not as if she's a great politican. She's won one competitive election, in 2000, in a overwhelmingly Democratic state in a presidential election year. There are plenty of centrists/independents who hate her guts.
Peter H:
I never said I think Hillary Clinton is a phenomenal politician. She's a strong campaigner and a tough competitor, but she's not a great speaker. But winning elections isn't just about campaigning, it's also about knowing where the country is on key issues. When has Barack Obama won a competitive election? Certainly not any general election he has ever entered. This would mark the first competitive primary he won where his opponent was disqualified on the basis of legal technicalities or has their candidacy implode based on a divorce or sex scandal. So I don't think there should be any comments from the peanut gallery on who has or has not won a competitive race and why.
The Clintons were so successful in Arkansas and in presidential elections (and yes I say the "Clintons" because Hillary has always been a chief strategist and advisor) because they know where the centre is.
I wasn't saying that Barack is experienced in competitive elections, just that Hilary's campaign experience is not signifigantly greater. I don't accept your lumping of Hilary & BIll together.
In terms of knowing where the country is on key issues, she clearly didn't demonstrate that in 1993-4 on health care.
Don Williams,
For what it is worth, Temple also did a set of head-to-head polls recently which showed that while both Clinton and Obama would beat McCain in PA, Clinton was doing better in that matchup among Democrats, and Obama among Republicans. And that was largely because Clinton's Democratic supporters were far less willing to commit to voting for Obama if he was the nominee as opposed to the other way around.
Assuming the Clintons do the right thing once Obama is the nominee (meaning they stop attacking him with everything they can come up with and start campaigning for him), it is reasonable to expect that this discrepancy among who Democrats would vote for to close. As I noted, at that point it is reasonable to expect that Obama's higher support among Pennsylvania's independents and Republicans would make him the overall stronger candidate.
Tim K,
To be charitable, I will now acknowledge a good point rather than ridiculing you. It is true that no one, neither Obama supporters nor Clinton supporters, should be arguing from the primary results in a state to who will do better in the general election in that state.
Of course, if someone cites primary results to that effect, I think it is fine to point out if their descriptive predicate is false. For example, I think it is fine to mock you for ignoring the fact that your descriptions of the Obama and Clinton coalitions break down once you move past the territories of the original thirteen colonies. But I would agree that your argument is also fundamentally flawed because of this basic misconception about the predictive utility of primary results, and therefore correcting your descriptive errors does turn your invalid argument for Clinton into a valid argument for Obama. Rather, it is just a bad argument.
Most recent polls = Obama more competitive in many states (including one that counts, CA):
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/4/23/2417/55984/47/501352
Sorry: that should be ". . . does NOT turn your invalid argument for Clinton into a valid argument for Obama."
Peter H:
Bill Clinton was the President in 1993-94, not Hillary Clinton, so they both share the blame for the mistakes that were made during health care. Health care is a good example of why achieving consensus is so difficult in Washington on important contentious issues, and why the idea Obama will be able to do so with inspirational rhetoric is simply ludicrous.
Hillary Clinton engineered Bill's 1982 comeback to the Governor Mansion in Arkansas along with Dick Morris, and worked more closely with Morris than even Bill did during those years. They can't be "lumped" together but clearly she played an indispensable role through most of his political career.
Back to ridiculing two more or less random Tim K points:
(1) Blair Hull was not Obama's only opponent in the 2004 Senate primaries. Indeed, the original frontrunner was Dan Hynes, and several other opponents started with more name recognition and money than Obama. Clinton has never been in this sort of situation before, and it shows.
(2) By Tim K's logic, people like Dick Morris and James Carville would also be excellent candidates for President, since they also gave advice to Bill Clinton. By similar logic, Joe Paterno could throw on the pads and win the Heisman Trophy, since he coached Heisman Trophy winner John Cappelletti in 1973.
DTM:
Should I be thanking you for being charitable and not ridiculing me? Your ridicule doesn't affect me.
The results in California, Texas, Florida, Nevada, Arizona and New Mexico all showed Clinton's strength among latino voters. None of those were among the original thirteen colonies. Maybe you need a refresher course in American history, but Ohio, West Virginia, Kentucky, Arkansas and Tennessee were not among the thirteen either.
To change the subject slightly, I think yesterday's results are a good argument in favor of counting Florida's primary results. Obama supporters claim that the counting FL would be unfair because he didn't have a chance to compete there. Well, he campaigned heavily in PE for six weeks and outspent her by 3 to 1, but still lost by 9.5%. So we are supposed to believe that had both candidates competed in Florida (at a time when Obama could not have outspent Clinton by anywhere close to as much in advertising) he would have closed the gap?
So we are supposed to believe that had both candidates competed in Florida (at a time when Obama could not have outspent Clinton by anywhere close to as much in advertising) he would have closed the gap?
Yes you nimwit, because Clinton's lead in PA was much larger before he campaigned there. Jesus Christ get a life.
Tim K,
Yes, I have noticed you are impervious to facts or logic. That is why I am now just ridiculing.
Random point of ridicule:
I used the phrase "the territories of the original thirteen colonies." Tim K named West Virginia and Kentucky as states that were not original colonies. That is true, but he might want to look into the histories of West Virginia and Kentucky (and Virginia, hint-hint) just a bit more.
DTM:
So your claims are facts while my claims are not. Oh the arrogance.
The idea that you even brought up "the territories of the thirteen colonies" is pretty ridiculous in itself. Are you trying to claim that people who live in those areas are somehow part of "Old America"? Kind of like Old Europe. Not the New Kingdom led by his royal highness the Obamessiah.
I suppose people in Appalachia are just too bitter to realize how broken their souls are.
Tim K,
Obama closed a 20-point gap in Pennsylvania to 9 points. That is consistent with his performance in many other states where he was far behind before he went into the states to campaign. Why, then, is it unreasonable to expect that, if given the chance to campaign in Florida, he would improve on the 17-point margin from the earlier primary, especially with Edwards now out of the race? (It was Clinton 50, Obama 33 in Florida, right?)
Brian:
He may have done a few points better but Clinton still would have won Florida by doubt digits. Could Obama have out-spent Clinton in Florida 3 to 1 in late January? No. He was able to close large gaps in Pennsylvania, Texas and Ohio by spending like a drunken sailor and breaking all records, but he wasn't able to win any of them. What reason is there to think he could win Michigan or Florida?
Tim K,
You are funnier when you are earnest. And, incidentally, I am actually the one defending Clinton's supporters, since I am the one who doesn't believe they are voting for Clinton because they are a bunch of racists.
Point of ridicule:
It is true that Clinton has done well among Latino voters in the Southwest. So suppose you backed Latino voters out of the Southwest states. What would the results indicate about the issue of whether Clinton's coalition of non-Latinos in the Northeast and South held up in the Southwest? The truth, of course, is that her coalition in the Northeast/South didn't hold up in the Southwest, just as it didn't hold up in the Midwest, Great Plains, or Northwest.
DTM:
Clinton supporters do not have to apologize for or explain their votes. And, by the way, not voting for the first serious black presidential candidate doesn't make somebody a racist anymore than not voting for the first serious female candidate makes them a sexist.
"It is true that Clinton has done well Latino voters in the Southwest"... Thanks for conceding the obvious. Although you conveniently leave out that she has also done well with latinos in New York, New Jersey and even broke even with latinos in Obama's home state of Illinois. At least Clinton can assemble a voting coalition that would prevail in a general election: Seniors, latinos, downscale white men and white women. That's a proven winning coalition of voters.
College students, blacks and people with postgraduate degrees sounds more like the McGovern coalition.
Tim K,
Unfortunately, your last post only merits repeat ridicule--namely, your description of the respective coalitions doesn't survive if you leave the South and head west of Appalachia, and your argument still implicitly assumes primary results are indicative of general election results.
So, I guess I am done ridiculing you for now. Let me know if you come up with something new to ridicule.
DTM:
I also seem to remember you ridiculing me, in the aftermath of Texas/Ohio, when I made the claim that Clinton could net over 200,000 popular votes out of Pennsylvania.
Tim K,
Money is important and it helped Obama close the gap, but $11 million was not as valuable in Pennsylvania as Clinton's brand name, the Democratic machine of Rendell, Nutter and the 100 mayors, and Pennsylvania's status as a de facto home state for Clinton because of her family ties there.
Anyway, step back and look at the bigger picture. Consider that Clinton has spent $180 million on the campaign since she started and, even with the huge built-in advantage she enjoyed, she still trails Obama. Mark Penn was getting paid more each month than Obama's entire group of campaign strategists are getting paid in a year, and you're suggesting that he spends "like a drunken sailor"? The only reason Hillary didn't spend $11 million in Pennsylvania is because she had gone broke. This is not a point in her favor. The disciplined and shrewd way in which Obama has used the money he has generated to establish organizations in every state and to run ads is a point in his favor.
It is ridiculous for Hillary or her supporters to suggest that she has somehow been the underdog in this race, even if she trails. Do you at all doubt that, if the pledged delegate, popular vote and states won totals were reversed, Obama would have been forced out of this race a month-and-a-half ago? It is only because Hillary is a Clinton that she has been considered by some to still have a legitimate shot to win.
According to (I believe) a TPM article yesterday, Obama spends seventy-five cents for every dollar he gets, while Hillary spents $1.10. It's painfully obvious who's better with money.
Just need to keep repeating the facts every single day:
1) Clinton trails in pledged delegates.
2) Clinton trails in the popular vote.
3) Clinton only has two dozen more superdelegates than Obama and her trend line has been down, down, down.
4) Even if you seat Michigan and Florida at the convention, nothing changes.
5) Gore and Carter will endorse Obama and demand Clinton drop out shortly.
6) Clinton is toast.
7) And any Clinton supporter who doesn't understand the above - or who does and continues to support Clinton - is a traitor to the Democrats - not to mention a moron for supporting a corrupt, hawkish, cheap politician.
Brian:
Pennsylvania a de facto home state for her? Are you kidding? I guess that makes it New York, Arkansas, Illinois and Pennsylvania. That's silly. New York is her home state because she's represented it in the senate, and Arkansas is a de facto home state because she was first lady and because of Bill. You can't say every state where somebody has a connection is a home state.
I don't have a doubt that Obama would have been forced out of the race by now if the totals had been reversed. Then again, if Obama had won Texas, Ohio and Pennsylvania she'd have been forced out by now as well. You have to show you can win on difficult as well as favorable terrain. Clinton won states like Massachusetts and Arizona where Obama benefited from high profile endorsements. She won in New Hampshire where he benefited from a strong demographic base of wine-track liberals who have voted for past insurgents like Gary Hart.
This is not an usual test to have to pass in a Democratic primary. That's actually what these contests are for. John Kennedy had to prove he could win without having to rely on Catholic votes. Even though he defeated Hubert Humphrey handily in Wisconsin, the party establishment wasn't convinced because he his margin was reliant on Catholics. To dispel the doubts about his electability he had to win a Protestant electorate, which he did by winning decisively in West Virginia.
Obama has to prove he can win over a white, working class electorate in a primary (open or closed, it doesn't matter). He has to show he can win without relying on blacks, students and the white win crowd. He could have done that in Ohio, and this week in Pennsylvania. He now has another chance in Indiana. If he wins there decisively then he's passed the test. If he loses the jury is still out, and we move on to Kentucky, and like Kennedy in 1960, to West Virginia.
By your logic, shouldn't Clinton have to prove that she can win the votes of blacks and young people?
No, I am not kidding about Pennsylvania being a de facto home state for Clinton. A candidate can have a "home court advantage" in more than one state. It's not "every state" to which the candidate has a connection. No one's claiming Massachusetts as a home state for Clinton (Wellesley) or Obama (Harvard Law), or Connecticut (Yale Law) for Clinton, or California (Occidental) for Obama. Obama has "home states" in Illinois and Hawai'i. New York is a home state for Clinton, but more of a de facto home state as she never lived there before running for office, and she has spent most of time since being elected in D.C. To get a sense of how much New Yorkers consider Clinton one of them, look at how much narrower her win there was than Obama's win in Illinois, a place where he actually lived and worked for many years before getting into politics. Clinton herself emphasized her roots in Pennsylvania-- summers on Lake Winola, and a father and brother who were Nittany Lions. That connection was an advantage for her (and a lot more resonant with people in the state than, say, when she cited her time spent in Texas registering voters while campaigning in that state). I note that you do not even address all of the other advantages she had that I laid out above.
Comments closed May 07, 2008.
| 
Heads in the Sand
If Obama were to lose in NC, that would be a story. I know people are saying it's over already, but Obama losing in NC would raise huge questions as to whether he's been weakened (not that I think he'll lose). Indiana doesn't matter much.
Posted by Ronnie P | April 23, 2008 9:57 AM