Clinton wins . . . it's a question of margins and delegates now. As Jon Chait says, this seems to basically leave things unchanged.
« Delegates | Main | Save Us! »
It's Official
22 Apr 2008 08:50 pm
Comments (35)
I'd say that's worth extremely little.
What do you mean it's 'official'?
"43 percent percent of voters say Clinton isn't trustworthy. 21 percent of those voters supported Clinton anyway."
CNN just called it for Clinton.
"43 percent percent of voters say Clinton isn't trustworthy. 21 percent of those voters supported Clinton anyway."
That's the sizable pro-fibber demographic in the democratic party. It's been around since the Clinton administration.
It's like election blue balls.
This is an instance, like many this year, when the coverage is the story. It's a victory for Obama if the media says it is. If they say Hillary's back, she wins. If they say the margin was disappointing and she still can't win, he wins.
She's going to keep going, isn't she? Even though she's broke, and as Chuck Todd is describing now, it's impossible?
What bothers me is all this focus on the white vote. Like if you don't win the white vote, that's it. You're done come November. But from what I recall, Bill Clinton never won the white vote in 92 or 96. Yet I don't remember anyone in the press pointing out that Bill needed to win his fellow white people to take the election. Where was Russert to suggest, "It's obvious that what Bill Clinton needs right now is to get the white voter on his side."
Olbermann/Matthews/Russert sound very fed up with the Clintons' tactics and moving of the goalposts.
Please God, just let it stay close.
Didn't that Ringo fellow proclaim a 20% win yesterday?
Yes its unchanged. Barack's losing streak continues.
With all his money, why can't he knock her out?
How come no one mentions that Obama is not campaigning with Bill Clinton? Talk about advantages. And also, why does no one mention that Hillary raised A LOT of money too and somehow she is now broke?
With all his money, why can't he knock her out?
It's not considered sporting to punch a woman.
Why can't Hillary Clinton ever extend- or even hold- a gigantic lead in a state that was built for her (lower AA vote, lower youth vote, higher 65+ vote than Ohio, and it looks like he's doing better)? What does it say that in six weeks he was able to cut deeply into her base, and not the other way around?
Obama can't "knock out" Hillary because she's an able candidate with a hardcore constituency that shows up, without fail, in these low turnout elections.
Why can't Hillary Clinton ever extend- or even hold- a gigantic lead in a state that was built for her (lower AA vote, lower youth vote, higher 65+ vote than Ohio, and it looks like he's doing better)? What does it say that in six weeks he was able to cut deeply into her base, and not the other way around? Posted by 55 | April 22, 2008 9:36 PMAnd that is the best question of the day. Why oh why is it impossible for Hillary to hold on to her big leads? Just imagine, she is now even with McCain in polls and doesn't have a 20 point lead. She cannot win the fall, there are serious questions about her candidacy.
We won't know the count til it comes in.... but shouldn't Philly's Obama edge be higher? OK, only 58% the precincts in but it's a 58/42 split. In a city with an equal proportion of black and white residents, with a decent progressive political voice. It's confirming what I've felt anecdotally here... strong pockets of Clinton support in many corners of the city. (e.g. the gay vote) I'm glad the city's gone for Obama, but doesn't seem enough to balance out the rest of the state, even to keep margins small.
How can someone whose base is "older women" and "poorly-educated whites" win the GE?
Aren't those the same voters will turn to McCain once they "put that colored boy back in his place"?
Oh that's right, the rest of us Democrats are supposed to forgive and forget and line up behind Her Royal Clinton.
Well guess what, by the time she slashes and burns her way to the nomination, McCain will have solidified the Conservatives and then will make a sharp turn to the middle, cheered on the whole way with Media-Love. He'll scoop up all the independents, the Obama-angry, and much of Hillary's uneducated base.
Is that really the election we want?
If I'm not mistaken Obama was up by about 200,000 in the popular vote before PA, using the estimates for caucus states and excluding Michigan and Florida. Right now there are about 60% of the returns in and the spread between Obama and Clinton is only about 113,000. If Clinton gets a similar number of votes for the remaining 40% of the votes, that means she'll have beaten him by about 188,000 - not quite enough to put her over the edge in the popular vote.
Tel, he was up by 700k using those numbers, not 200k.
Hillary is only that close EXCLUDING caucus estimates and INCLUDING MI & FL.
Whoops, looks like the site I'd checked had the include/exclude reversed. Anyway, the spread in PA is about 200,000 right now. RealClearPolitics is showing the only way Clinton is ahead in total votes right now is if you count both Florida and Michigan and exclude the caucus states; and even then she's only up by about 100,000. I'm pretty sure North Carolina will end that line of argument for her.
Yes, Obama will wipe out her gains here in the next primary in two weeks.
Clinton cannot win this thing unless Obama drops dead or does something SO stupid that the pledged delegates and the superdelegates dump him. Not very likely.
If she hadn't won PA by 10 percent, Gore and Carter would endorse Obama and demand she drop out. As it stands, I think they'll wait until the next primary in two weeks, then dump on her when she's thoroughly defeated there.
Clinton is toast.
Let assume that Hillary Clinton wins enough of the popular vote and enough pledged delegates to convince the super delegates to make her the Democratic nominee. How many Obama supporters will not vote for her in the general election because they feel, correctly, that she ran a despicable campaign against him? And how many of them will vote for John McCain out of spite? It seems to me enough to rule her out as a viable general election candidate, which means she has no business still running for the nomination. All she can do now is contribute to a Democratic loss to John McCain. Is she going to do just that? You bet!
What a miserable state of affairs.
Jack,
You hint at the fundamental cognitive disconnect of Clinton's argument. The press keeps parroting the line, "Why can't Obama finish her off?," but completely ignores the converse--i.e., what does it say about her appeal that, over the course of the contest, she has lost two-thirds of the contests and the majority of the votes cast?
What does it say about her appeal that he won the state he represents by a far wider margin than she won the state she represents? Or that he has better favorability ratings and better numbers against McCain in New York according to the Siena poll that came out earlier today?
Brian, does that poll have Obama winning NY? A recent poll had them both LOSING to McAsshat.
55,
Clinton leads 46-42; Obama leads 45-40. MOE is +/-4. Obama's favorable unfavorable is plus-20 (54/34); Clinton's is plus-2 (48/46).
This poll appears to have gotten a lot of play in New York today as showing the state trending "purple," but you have to expect that whichever Democrat gets the nomination will enjoy in bump in New York and elsewhere.
PA's over, now what's next:
From "Head of State"
http://headofstate.blogspot.com/2008/04/best-way-for-obama-to-go-negative-go.html
Wednesday, April 23, 2008
The Best Way For Obama To Go Negative: Go Positive
The WP, via CNN, reports that there is now a discussion in the Obama camp as to whether he should go negative in Indiana.
Simply going negative would be a critical error, opening Obama to charges that he would be contradicting the very messages that have inspired his efforts and undergirded his campaign. This is a gap that the Clinton team would surely leap through. He would be further drawn into the swirling chaos that the old politics has created--as the Clinton camp would sure wish-- further enveloping and distracting voters from the fundamental messages of his campaign.
The best way for Obama to go negative is to go positive--clearly, strongly, and powerfully contrasting the method of "kitchen sink" politics, where any statement or position--even statements that are diametrically opposed; any claim, no matter how false; and any trivial distraction can be used simply in the effort to win at any cost, with the genuine effort to move the nation into a more substantive and honest politics--and into an Administration that will be grounded in these principles, rather than the very same methods and distortions that we can so easily see having been employed over the past seven years.
He should relentlessly tie the former method to the politics of the past--and to indicate the consequences for the nation that these politics have wrought--in the loss of national stature, Constitutional and moral authority, economic stability, and our most important treasure, the lives of our sons and daughters to a cause borne of such distortions.
I.e.:
"We have had enough of the negative campaigning of the past. We have seen what it has done to us over the past years--the "kitchen sink" politics of distortion and falsehood, of being willing to make any claim--no matter how true, false, inconsistent or contradictory--to put forward one's personal agenda, has threatened to take this great nation down the drain--financially, in terms of our standing in the world; in terms of our most important and basic treasure--the lives of our sons and daughters--the very future of this nation.
Do we want the same result? The same candidates, using the same old tactics, leading to the same outcomes of the all-too-recent past? Those who will do or say anything to be elected--and then will do or say anything afterward to justify their mistakes?
We need a change from the politics of the past. We need someone who will say enough of the politics of the kitchen sink, of trivia and distortion. It's time to drain the sink. It's time for someone who , instead of fighting to divide the nation in pursuit of victory, will fight for you by saying: We will not play the same old games. That's the old politics. That's the politics that led us into Iraq, that left Osama Bin Ladin free, that led to violations of the Constitution that we solemnly pledge to uphold for this nation, and that has led us to be faced each day with the loss of promise that each new American life represents.
We can be seduced by politics of tactics, of fear. We've seen it before. And we've seen what happens after
Will you join me in putting this era of old politics behind us, into a new future where you, your country, and the needs of your family and your future come first? Where we step beyond the tactics, distortion, and trivia of the moment, that too often have led to a long and difficult future for our nation, into to a time when the genuine needs of our nation and our country matter most?
Change is never easy. But when it is difficult, it is what we most often need.
Will you join me in saying "No" to the kitchen sink politics of the past, to putting the era of old politics, of trivia and tactics, sniping and distortion, behind us? In saying "Yes" to a new and honest future, dedicated to the real needs of the American people, and not to the trivial battles that have divided and distracted this country for so long? To the real changes that this country has needed for the past 7 years, rather than to a continuation of the politics of the past? Will you join me? Can you join me? Let me hear it:
Yes we can (etc.)"
This should help to lead voters away from the churning pool of chaos and incitement, the distracting, impulsive song of the Clinton camp that, in its vague insinuations, pulls people to the seeming attraction and safety of the old--and will to help lead them towards an era where we can leave this ill-thought trivia behind for a considered, honest and principled statesmanship.
Cite:
Head of State
http://headofstate.blogspot.com/2008/04/best-way-for-obama-to-go-negative-go.html
Just read another thoughtful and interesting piece by the "headofstate" author (Lipman)cited above. A pychological makeup on Hillary - a good one. Relying a little on Bernstein's book...he fleshes out who she really is. Essentially, her masks have lost their integity. And, at 3A.M. we can't afford a psychologically unattuned President.
Next primary is Guam, anybody know how the polls are looking there?
(And did anybody think that would actually be a concern?)
Next primary is Guam, anybody know how the polls are looking there?
Unfortunately, since Guam only has 4 delegates, you need a 63%+ win to get better than a 2-2 split, so it's likely that the candidates will simply break even (although an even break at this point is effectively a Clinton defeat, since it leaves the margin unchanged).
Question - I may not be smart enough, but isn't there some type of contradiction in the Clinton's claims that the popular vote total should matter more than states won and their claims that her wins in big states no matter the percentage split (TX and MO come to mind) as evidence that she can win there in the fall? It seems to me that either the total popular vote should count OR which states you happen to actually win should count, but you should be called out for being intellectually dishonest if you play it both ways.
THIS IS GREAT NEWS FOR HILLARY AGAINST RACIST AMERICA HATEING ANTISEMETIC OSAMA... OOPS, I MEANT OBAMA (OR DID I?) BIG MAIN STREAM MEDIAS IN THE TANK FOR OBAMA BIN AMERICA-HATER JUST LIKE MCCAIN GO HILLARY YOU GO GIRL!!!!!!!!!!!!!! WE NEED A WOMAN WITH EXPERIANCE AND INTELIGANCE AND NOT SOME AMERICA-HATING LIBERAL ELITE MUSLIM!!!!!!!!!!!!!! WHY IS A MUSLIM RUNNING FOR THE WHITE HOUSE, THIS IS A CHRISTIAN COUNTRY, OBAMA SHOULD RUN FOR PRESIDENT OF ARABIA LOL
Comments closed May 06, 2008.
| 
Heads in the Sand
For what it's worth, CNN hasn't called it yet.
Posted by right | April 22, 2008 8:55 PM