Two Ways of Looking at a Primary

It always gives me pause to disagree with the brilliant John Judis, so I read his gloom and doom articles about Barack Obama's electability after every primary with interest. Still, I don't buy it. If it's true that Obama has trouble winning over Hillary Clinton's core supporters because of their deep-seated aversion to Obama, then how is he leading in the national polls against McCain? I think Clinton's voters are loyally backing her because they like Hillary Clinton a lot and given her status as a quasi-incumbent, party leader, and her husband's wife it's very hard to knock her off that pedestal.

To make a long story short, John's way of looking at the race seems to simply exclude the possibility that both Democrats are running strong campaigns. But I don't see any reason to view either candidate's trouble as reflecting "weakness" as opposed to his or her opponent's strength.

Comments

Matt, curious what the splits would be if we took out all white women (Hillary's base, which she seems to be winning like 65/35 or something) and all African-Americans (Obama wins them like 90/10)???

To me, there is no question why Obama can't knock Hillary out, and that's because she's HILLARY CLINTON! She's an 800lb gorilla of a politician, married to the most popular democrat of our lifetimes (okay, not McCain's - that would be FDR - but you get my point).

And Hillary is running as a woman, and winning women. Is this really a surprise?

Posted by Curious | April 23, 2008 5:44 PM

The old 'if my candidate doesn't get it the heck with the other Democrat' thing is SO overrated. One of the key problems with modern polling is that many of those being polled know how results are going to be used. The 'my candidate or no D' response is, for those polled, in many cases nothing but a way of voting for their own choice twice, a means of making their candidate's position stronger. It's strategic response, and has nothing to do with voting for John McCain.

A handful od D's won't vote for the D victor. 0% will actually pull that lever for John McCain.

Posted by drinkof | April 23, 2008 5:47 PM

Well, they love Obama in Beloit, WI:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u3LWlUhESBM

KNOW HOPE!!!

Posted by JR | April 23, 2008 5:52 PM

"It always gives me pause to disagree with the brilliant John Judis, so I read his gloom and doom articles about Barack Obama's electability after every primary with interest. Still, I don't buy it."

Just get your daddy to chip in a few bucks out of your inheritance. Then you can buy it.

And I still don't understand why you don't get daddy to buy you a whole magazine ala Marty Peretz, so you can spend decades bashing Democrats born without trust funds and attacking universal healthcare.

Think of it. You could have all the economic scumbaggism of TNR with an Israeli policy slanted left instead of right. Which, it seems, is your basic political program, Matthew.

Fuck universal healthcare. Fuck universal college tuition. Fuck preserving social security. Fuck the meritocracy. Fuck Likud. It's the trust fund scumbag platform of 2008.

Posted by Petey | April 23, 2008 5:52 PM

One thing that I don't understand is how come it is not mentioned that Hillary's campaign was exclusively focussed on these 'big states'.

Let's get the facts right here:
1. She started the race with 100% name recognition.
2. She had a "popular" former two-term President not only endorsing her, but actively campaigning for her.
3. She raised $180m.
4. She spent said money exclusively in 'big states' as a part of her strategy.
5. She had the endorsement, support and active campaigning of the Governor and access to their appartus in each of these 'big states'.

How come the question is not being asked why she cannot blow Obama out in these contests considering the concentrated spending of so much money in these few contests and all the advantages she has had. The media narrative is remarkable, isn't it?

So, to counter her institutional advantages in those states, Obama focussed on the states that 'didn't matter', running a nearly 50 state campaign (I don't think he bothered with OK, KY and AR). Guess they matter a whole lot now.

Quite frankly, I am tired of the concern trolls. How is it that all of these people are so certain that America will not vote for Obama because he is BLACK? Remember when the concern trolls said that America would not vote for someone who is divorced? Or that America would not vote for someone because they cheated on their wife or 'never inhaled' or dodged the draft (they voted for the draft dodger 4 times in a row now)? Concern trolls make me laugh.

Posted by Bubba | April 23, 2008 5:52 PM

Why is the pompous Judis such a big deal? He reminds me of people like Brooks, Krugman and John Dickerson, who just write to fit their pre-set views about Obama instead of actually figuring anything out.

Posted by southernoregon | April 23, 2008 5:52 PM

I keep asking the same question as drinkof - how can we rely on head-to-head polls while the primary is still being fought? Won't some percentage of Obama and Clinton supporters give dishonest answers in order to game the outcome?

Posted by blah | April 23, 2008 5:53 PM

No Petey, fuck me!

Posted by John Edwards' $400 haircut | April 23, 2008 5:54 PM

To make a long story short, John's way of looking at the race seems to simply exclude the possibility that both Democrats are running strong campaigns.

So after all the misleading attack ads, lies, missteps, Solis Doyle, Penn, $$ problems, etc..., you think Hillary is actually running a strong campaign?

I don't know if I would say there's a "deep-seated" aversion to Obama on the Democratic side, but if you take the sentimends of "Tim K," "Still Undecided," "Undecided," etc... as representative of some portion of the party, surely there is plenty of aversion out there.

Just as there are people who would like to see Clinton win, regardless of her campaign pitfalls.

Posted by SoCalJustice | April 23, 2008 5:56 PM

Forgive me for being impolitic, but I think it merits mentioning that HRC's elevated levels of support arise from the fact that - despite the length of the primary - there remain a *lot* of low information voters. Low information voters, btw, are also much more likely to "break" for Hillary when deciding late simply because of the name recognition (she has benefited in virtually every primary from an advantage in late deciding (ergo, low information) voters).

The fact is that only 54% of primary voters yesterday thought Obama would be the likely nominee, and something like 43% thought it would be HRC. Anyone who thinks Hillary will be the nominee is either delusional (not the case with most voters, but perhaps the case with some commenters) or - more likely, low information.

Posted by McKingford | April 23, 2008 5:57 PM

Haha, Petey is such an embarrassment.

Posted by Andy | April 23, 2008 5:57 PM

It's hard to imagine that a large proportion of pro-Hillary women will suddenly bolt for McCain in the general election. This is especially true when Democratic women consider the contrast between Obama and McCain on the economy, health care, abortion, Iraq, etc.

Posted by Buffaloed | April 23, 2008 5:57 PM

Petey sounds like a sexy dude!

Posted by Chelsea Clinton's trust fund | April 23, 2008 5:58 PM

Why is the pompous Judis such a big deal? He reminds me of people like Brooks, Krugman and John Dickerson, who just write to fit their pre-set views about Obama instead of actually figuring anything out.

Posted by southernoregon | April 23, 2008 6:00 PM

The Magic Lakers played the Bird Celtics over and over in championship matchups and the commentary was never 'Why can't Bird finish off Magic?' or vice-versa -- it was a given that with two great teams playing for one championship only one squad could win. It doesn't follow that the loser sucks or that a team that took 7 games to win the series had a some fatal flaw. It's a close matchup. It's not that hard.

"BUT WHY CAN'T OBAMA CLOSE THE DEAL??!!??" The press is so fucking stupid.

Posted by joejoejoe | April 23, 2008 6:02 PM

Fuck universal healthcare. Fuck universal college tuition. Fuck preserving social security. Fuck the meritocracy. Fuck Likud.

And there's the tell. One of those things is not like the others. I've long wondered exactly why Petey was so pro-DLC, especially given that pretty much all of the candidates were neolibs of one form or another. Now we know.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | April 23, 2008 6:06 PM

In any case, the biggest problems with the Judis piece are:

(1) he is looking at some irrelevant evidence (Obama's and Clinton's relative performance in a few cherry-picked primaries) and overlooking the relevant evidence (Obama's and Clinton's head-to-head matchups against McCain, both nationally and in various states);

(2) he is saying that Obama is unelectable, but ignoring the stronger evidence that Clinton is even less electable.

Overall, it is just a really, really weak piece.

Posted by blah | April 23, 2008 6:06 PM

It's hard to imagine that a large proportion of pro-Hillary women will suddenly bolt for McCain in the general election. This is especially true when Democratic women consider the contrast between Obama and McCain on the economy, health care, abortion, Iraq, etc.

Posted by Buffaloed | April 23, 2008 6:09 PM

So after all the misleading attack ads, lies, missteps, Solis Doyle, Penn, $$ problems, etc..., you think Hillary is actually running a strong campaign?

I don't know if I would say there's a "deep-seated" aversion to Obama on the Democratic side, but if you take the sentimends of "Tim K," "Still Undecided," "Undecided," etc... as representative of some portion of the party, surely there is plenty of aversion out there.

I have to give Clinton a lot of credit for creating an image of herself as tough and competent. She's done such a good job with it that no one even thinks to question this, or wonder what it's based on. I think that's a damned good job.

And she's encountered a lot of sexism on the likeability front (over the past 15 years or so), and I think she is still fairly likeable, although I would like her to go away at this point.

Still Undecided and Undecided are the same person, and Tim K is a fucking Canadian. Cal, another person who would go on and on about the future of the Democratic Party depending on a Clinton nomination, is a freaking registered Republican for Christ's sake. It's absurd.

Posted by Barbar | April 23, 2008 6:09 PM

Dude, how much money does Petey think novelist-screenwriters make?

Posted by too many steves | April 23, 2008 6:12 PM

"BUT WHY CAN'T OBAMA CLOSE THE DEAL??!!??"

Read Bubba's comment above. Because Hillary started out with ALL the advantages, a list that should have been impossible to overcome. He can't seal the deal because he's still climbing the Everest of advantages stacked against him. (Support of Clinton by Gov. Rendell is one example.)

The real question is how come is it even with all those overwhelming advantages, HILLARY CAN'T EVEN TAKE THE LEAD??!!??

The answer is that she's a weak candidate. Without the legitimacy bestowed upon her by Bill, she'd be a second rate lawyer at some law firm you never heard of right now. She's only where she's at because she's Bill's wife. That's not being sexist, that's fact. She's a tough but decidedly untalented politician.

Posted by LFC | April 23, 2008 6:13 PM

You can guarantee the GOP elders wouldn't do something like "put the election in people's hands."

They would have cut Hilldog off at the knees long ago and gone for the jugular on the other party's nominee.

Good thing we aren't like that.

Posted by mcd | April 23, 2008 6:18 PM

Did McCain get 45 percent of the vote in any of the contested Republican primaries?

It seems to me that Obama has done better than McCain in just about every contested primary, either based on percentage of voters or absolute number of votes. So it seems a little silly to suggest that getting 45.4% of the vote in Pennsylvania suggests an electability problem for Obama, while McCain's 36% in Florida does not.

Posted by Just Asking | April 23, 2008 6:20 PM

Fuck Likud.

Where the hell did that come from?

Posted by right | April 23, 2008 6:24 PM

I agree with Judis that Obama represents the liberal wing of the Dem party. I also agree that American voters have been rejecting liberal Democrats for around fifty years. But the Republicans have ruined everything so spectacularly, our Democratic candidate is going to win this year whoever we nominate. So I'm happy that our next president will even be a real liberal.

Posted by Gary Sugar | April 23, 2008 6:26 PM

I'd put is slightly differently, Hillary is a strong candidate who started with about every advantage you could ask for who ran a lousy campaign. Obama is a strong candidate who ran an excellent campaign. Just about any Dem not named Hillary Clinton would have been gone months ago. If Hillary had run a campaign even close to Obama's it would have been over by Super Tuesday.

Posted by Eric k | April 23, 2008 6:26 PM

You have to wonder why the Republicans are hitting Obama so hard right now. They smell blood and want to give the nomination to Hillary.

In NC for example, the Democratic contenders for Governor are outpolling the Republicans. But Hillary is losing big to both Obama and McCain. Hillary at the top of the ticket is going kill the chances for a Democrat to get elected Governor.

In WA, Gov. Christine Gregoire, an incumbent D and a woman, barely squeked by the last time after a million recounts and litigation and is very politically vulernable. Obama is beating McCain by blowout numbers in WA, Clinton is losing. How is that going to help a fellow woman retain her Governorship and keep WA blue, because it has been trending red.

In CO, Udall is beating the R challenger quite handily in the polls right now. Obama is leading McCain and Clinton is behind. You think that Udall and Harry Reid might want to be a bit concerned?

There are more examples than those three of course, which demonstrate that Obama is actually a much, much, much better candidate for the party than Clinton would ever be. And, since we all know how the Clinton's govern, the party would be foolish to allow them destroy Congressional majorities again, after it was such a hard fight to win them back.

Clinton, good for herself. Obama, good for the party.

Posted by Bubba | April 23, 2008 6:32 PM

Barbar touched on something above that drives me nuts about Hillary: this notion that she's "tough", or worse, a "fighter".

When the hell has Hillary ever "fought" for an unpopular position or defended the weak or helpless?

Never.

So understand that when people talk about Hillary being a "fighter" they aren't talking about anything other than fighting for her own political survival or advantage.

Posted by McKingford | April 23, 2008 6:34 PM

The best evidence for the "pro-Clinton" hypothesis versus the "anti-Obama" hypothesis is just to note that Clinton does particularly well among basically three groups: people who identify strongly with her (particularly older white women), people who identify strongly with Bill (which isn't all white men, but largely just white men in the South and Appalachians), and people where she has the support of an effective local party machine.

So, you don't really need to specify anything about Obama in particular to explain her support. And, of course, John McCain will have almost none of that going for him, except perhaps among the oldest of the old folks.

Posted by DTM | April 23, 2008 6:34 PM

LFC - Agreed. Hillary Clinton had tons of built in advantages and pissed them all away by pretending she was inevitable and dismissing her opponents. If she ran a confident campaign instead of an arrogant campaign she'd likely be the nominee. Instead a confident underdog completely threw her off her game, like somehow it's an insult for a competitor to compete well. History won't be kind to the Clinton '08 campaign.

Posted by joejoejoe | April 23, 2008 6:38 PM

Petey's "trust fund scumbag : Matt Yglesia :: Gary Ruppert's "The fact is" : Sadly No!

Both trolls have become interesting for their pure comedic value.

Posted by Seitz | April 23, 2008 6:38 PM

it's very hard to knock her off that pedestal. - Matt

Pedestal?

Do you have a favorable or unfavorable impression of Hillary Clinton? Do you feel that way strongly or somewhat?

Strongly favorable: 22
Somewhat favorable: 23
Somewhat unfavorable: 15
Strongly unfavorable: 39

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/documents/postpoll_041408.html

Posted by Gary Sugar | April 23, 2008 6:40 PM

Gary Sugar,

But isn't that looking at all adults, not just Democratic primary voters?

That is the thing about Hillary: she is legitimately polarizing, meaning she gets relatively high strong favorables and relatively high strong unfavorables, as opposed to the usual normal distribution. And those strong favorables are usually Democrats.

Posted by DTM | April 23, 2008 6:52 PM

Hillary''s new slogan is " Why can''t he close the deal?" Someone should remind Hillary that they are running for the office of the President of the United States and that they are not some used car salesmen. Keep counting those imaginary delegates from Michigan and Florida. If there is one thing that America stands for, is that We are a nation of Laws, and Michigan and Florida broke the Democratic laws. The Democratic Party is not going to show the rest of the country that they will break their own rules."If we had the same system as the Republicans, I would already be the nominee...." yet another Clinton scenario for winning the primary. Do you think that you can make any other points as to whether the superdelegates should back Hillary ? Why did the media fail to chastise Ed Rendell " There are some people in this State that will not vote for a black man" but they vote for someone who channels Truman and said " we can totally obliterate Iran" By the way that wasn''t McCain who made that statement... it was Hillary. I did not say Clinton, because you may have understood it to be Bill Clinton. By the way AOL might want to get their facts straight.... Hillary won by 8.5 points and not 10

Posted by Ron | April 23, 2008 7:09 PM

Its comical. Reading some of the comments here, you'd think me, me and a couple others are the only ones passing up the kool-aid.

Wake up droids! 55 percent of Pennsylvania democrats just voted AGAINST Obama.

I'm simply not thrilled with handing Pennsylvania over to McCain.

Matt: you can't anchor your faith in Obama's electability in April polls. That's weak.

BTW - I'm posting as "Undecided" strictly for continuity. Its not a fake out. Yes, I voted for Hillary yesterday. But I will gladly vote for Obama if he is the nominee.

Posted by Undecided | April 23, 2008 7:09 PM

What I don't understand about the "Why can't he close the deal?" line of attack is how that ends up with Hillary having a better case for the nomination. Is it supposed to be that since no one has "closed the deal" (which I guess means winning every single state), we should default to picking the person farthest away from "closing the deal"?

Posted by DTM | April 23, 2008 7:13 PM

Undecided, once again, you show your stupidity. It was a closed primary. They weren't voting AGAINST Obama, they were voting FOR Hillary. Just like you, most of them (minus the 22% of Hillary voters that admitted in exit polls that they were voting against Obama because he was black) will vote FOR the Democrat.

Posted by 55 | April 23, 2008 7:16 PM

Yeah, there are a few steps missing in the "can't close the deal" argument. The missing steps, by implication, are that Obama "can't close the deal" due to some fatal flaws that will doom him in the general, whereas Hillary "can't close the deal" due to some other flaws that won't doom here in the general. It's pretty ridiculous, but that's all they've got, I guess.

Posted by blah | April 23, 2008 7:18 PM

My suspicion is that the difference between you and Judis is partly generational and partly a residual loyalty on Judis's part to the white working class. I'm an Obama supporter, but it likewise concerns me greatly that he's meeting such resistance from a demographic that has historically been critical to Democratic wins. Now, as Judis and Teixeira have argued, there's a shift going on, but it's not complete, and for that reason Obama can't be a done deal probably until Election Day. Those Democrats who are resisting him have bolted before, and could bolt again. It's also noteworthy that two candidates who scarcely differ on substance [as measured the way the blogosphere measures it] have developed so very different and firm followings. I don't think that suggests "low information voters"; I think it suggests high-information voters who are reading their information very differently than the blogosphere reads it. As Matt argues, Obama may win despite that division; but if he does, that victory will look much different from previous Democratic victories, and it will fundamentally change the party, in [to be blunt] possibly disturbing ways.

Posted by David in Nashville | April 23, 2008 7:22 PM

Sullivan nails it:

"What's striking to me about this race is that it is the young insurgent who is still acting as the responsible party elder; and the former president who is behaving like a man who will destroy his own party in order to soothe his own sense of entitlement and ego."

I have several theories about why Bill has gone bonkers:
1) Surgery + meds have addled his brain.
2) He fears that Obama really could be the liberal Reagan, which would undermine his legacy.
3) He wants to make it up to his wife for cheating on her (ha).
4) He really wants to be back in the White House.

I'm going with a combination of 2 and 4.

Posted by 55 | April 23, 2008 7:22 PM

Why the hell was Obama expected to win PA? It's a close race nationally, and momentum has been virtually nonexistent - Obama wins the states that are demographically favorable to him, and Hillary does likewise. I don't know why it's so hard for pundits to wrap their minds around this fact.

Posted by Abby | April 23, 2008 7:22 PM

I echo the comments about Obama not being able to *close the deal* nonsense. Clinton talking points all the way. The Clintons had everything going for them at the start and blew it. The question should be inversed in actuality.

As to why Obama didn't win PA consider:

59% of PA primary voters were over the age of 50.
58% of PA primary voters were women.
32% of PA primary voters were Catholic.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21226004/

These numbers are not representative of even PA in a general election, let alone the nation. They are also right in the Clinton wheelhouse of older more conservative and cautious voters. They will cling to the status quo every time which says more about PA than it does about Obama.

Posted by G Davis | April 23, 2008 7:23 PM

Abby, they get it plenty, but facts don't make for good copy. The press once served as an honest watchdog, but now, like everything else in America, it's all about the bottom line.

Posted by 55 | April 23, 2008 7:26 PM

David in Nashville,

Obama does fine among white working class voters once you get out of the South and past Appalachia. In fact, he did fine among such voters in the very first contest, Iowa.

Also, the former Reagan Democrats are mostly now independents and Republicans. These are Bill Clinton Democrats, and shockingly enough they are voting for a Clinton restoration.

Posted by DTM | April 23, 2008 7:31 PM

I don't think Hillary was many people's dream candidate. It was a weak field to start. My preference would have been Wes Clark. At least Clinton and Obama have gained in stature from the primary battle.

My vote was nearly as much against Obama on electabilty as for Hillary.

I don't see how the fact that Obama was expected to lose Penn makes the loss any better. Just proves to me its a state he can't win in the fall.

Posted by undecided | April 23, 2008 7:38 PM

Book it- Obama will lose California, NY, and Massachusetts in the fall. In a stunning upset, McCain will lose Utah.

/"Undecided"

Posted by 55 | April 23, 2008 7:41 PM

hey undecided, can i play your silly game:

you say: obama lost penn in the primary, so he will lose it in the fall

well:
hillary lost washington st, i guess she will lose that in the fall
hillary lost oregon, i guess she will lose it in the fall
hillary lost wisconsin, i guess she wll lose it in the fall
hillary lost vermont, i guess she will lose it in the fall
hillary lost minnesota, i guess she will lose it in the fall
hillary lost illinois, i guess she will lose it in the fall
hillary lost maine, i guess she will lose it in the fall

need i go on?

Posted by jab | April 23, 2008 7:53 PM

Hillary's tough but a decidedly untalented politician and weak candidate.

Tell that to the faces of the 15,000,000 Americans that have voted for her.

"She started the race with 100% name recognition."

After Iowa, he became the "anointed one" by the media.

"She raised $180m."

Obama has raised $100m in two months and outspent her 2 to 1 & 3 to 1 and still lost.

"She spent said money exclusively in 'big states' as part of her strategy."

She's won in all the big states except for MO and she lost by 1%.

"It's hard to imagine that a large portion of pro-Hillary women will suddenly bolt for McCain in the general election."

Read the comments from the Obama supporters, and you'll get a sense why we are not going to vote for him. Every time each of you demeans Hillary's side, it makes us more determined. Listen to yourselves describe Hillary and her voters as: low information voters, she's stealing the nomination, Clinton is being allowed to damage the party, and I'm looking forward to Hillary's concession speech. It will be the butt of a million jokes.

Obama is definitely a uniter. He's bringing together a coalition of groups that will have one thing in common if he becomes the nominee, defeat Obama.

Posted by EWard | April 23, 2008 7:54 PM

I dunno, undecided - by that logic, Hillary would lose Wisconsin, Maryland, Connecticut, Minnesota, Delaware, Maine, Washington and (let's say) Oregon in a general election since she lost those states in the primaries, right?

Posted by Abby | April 23, 2008 7:54 PM

The one upside to seeing HRC stay in to the end is, WV and KY aside, see her get creamed everywhere else.

Boy, she definitely is the Black Knight.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=2eMkth8FWno

Posted by Judy | April 23, 2008 8:00 PM

"He's bringing together a coalition of groups that will have one thing in common if he becomes the nominee, defeat Obama."

This is what I've been saying all along. People like EWard don't care about universal healthcare, or getting out of Iraq, or tax cuts for middle class people. They only care about Hillary.

Fucking get over yourself.

Posted by 55 | April 23, 2008 8:01 PM

There's no way Republicans will back John McCain given the incredibly divisive primary and the way all his opponents' rhetoric undermined his conservative qualifications.

Oops.

Posted by El Cid | April 23, 2008 8:06 PM

And with McCain's opposition to the Equal Pay bill today, it's even less likely that the majority of Hillary's women voters defect to McCain.

Posted by 55 | April 23, 2008 8:09 PM

And here we folks in Illinois thought we were a big state. Oh right, I forgot: Clinton Rules. The only states that are big are the ones she wins. Sorry, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Colorado, Maryland, Virginia -- you have been declared null and void by Declaration of Her Majesty the Crybaby. ("If the rules were different than they are, I would be winning!" Gee, Hillary, why didn't you try to win by the rules as they exist? That would seem more prudent.)

So EWard, go ahead and vote McCain. You're obviously in love with Republican talking points already, just like Mrs. Clinton (who couldn't wait to support George Bush's War without ever bothering to read the NIE -- guess that made her a "low information voter" too, huh?) So why not go whole hog?

If you think African Americans -- the single most loyal constituency the Democratic party has ever had -- will meekly line up and vote for Hillary Clinton if, as is almost certain, she loses the popular vote and pledged delegate count but is handed the nomination by superdelegates, you are delusional.

Posted by Kerry Reid | April 23, 2008 8:10 PM

I agree that taken as an individual, Hillary is a weak candidate. But she has always been running as part of The Clintons, and Bill remains an extremely formidable candidate, and he has a lot of very powerful friends.

Posted by DTM | April 23, 2008 8:24 PM

Re: those head-to-heads v. McCain, I just want to remined everyone we're not out of the woods yet:

According to Zogby, Bush was polling in the low 40s against John Kerry as late as July and August '04 (McCain currently gets a 44.6% against Barack according to your poll). So we definitely have no reason to rest on our laurels, despite all the bizarre blog posts that seem to suggest otherwise.

Posted by Swan | April 23, 2008 8:53 PM

Kerry,

Illinois was not part of Hillary's "big state" strategy because she knew Obama would win his home state.

The party is handing Obama the nomination by excluding the votes from FL and MI. The voters didn't make the rules. We are throwing away these votes because the Democratic Party is dysfunctional and it favors Obama.

Posted by EWard | April 23, 2008 9:16 PM

Yet the only way you can consider Hillary ahead in the popular vote is if you discount the 13 caucus states.

For nuts like EWard, you can count Michigan, a primary where Obama wasn't even on the ballot (and 40% of voters trekked to polling booths on a cold January night just to vote "Undecided" against Hillary in an election they knew wouldn't count), and Florida, a state where Obama wasn't allowed to campaign (and as Sullivan posted recently, his support always goes up as he campaigns), but not caucus states. You can change the rules and steal the nomination from the candidate who actually read the rules before making a strategy because it's Hillary's turn, dammit! You can whine about "silencing voices," but then fudge the numbers, silence even more voices, and create new metrics in order to put "our gal" ahead in the only way possible.

But then again, EWard has already proved that he/she does not give a shit about Democratic values, and will actively work to hurt the Democratic nominee if it's not Hillary. Even though she lost, she deserves it!!!

Posted by 55 | April 23, 2008 9:37 PM

Hillary is and always has been the least electable among all major Democratic party candidates. Those loyal to the Clintons have never wanted to face up that fact, but it's true.

She's been labeled and defined by the far right for 16 years now. She knows how effective they are because that is why she is trying to copy their tactics. But no one can smear Obama in a few months the way she has been for the last 16 years.

And in her case she has given the far right plenty of ammunition. She and Bill are the very embodiment of scandal.

And if we are going to focus on the personality issues, then she loses her in a big way. She has always been the least likable, and in fact, is hated by at least half of America.

If one can just take a step back from the Clinton spin, one can easily see that she is by far the least electable Democrat. Edwards or Dodd or Biden would do better than she would.

And Obama will be off the charts fantastic in a general election, once he doesn't have to contend with Hillary's shameless tactics.

And yes the GOP will use them too but with the full armor of the Democratic party behind him these attacks will fail. Hillary actually gives these right wing style of smears a level of legitimacy that they otherwise would not have. For that sin alone, she deserves to be punished hard by the electorate.

Posted by cm | April 23, 2008 9:46 PM

I just had a sick thought. Would asshats like EWard work for McCain to defeat Obama so that their gal can run in 2012?

Posted by 55 | April 23, 2008 9:50 PM

EWard, if you believe that Clinton is a uniquely talented politician, you're going to have to explain why she pursued such a poor primary strategy.

Someone else put it best: Hillary Clinton is running the best campaign of the 20th century. It's not really her fault, as she is a political product of another era, but that's what it is. She's the candidate who couldn't figure out how to win when the times demanded it.

Posted by Tyro | April 23, 2008 10:06 PM

Consider Hillary's cynical campaign, aided and abetted by the media: she downplays and criticizes Obama's inspiring rhetoric, and seeks to glorify trivialities like drinking shots and bowling.

With so much of the media buying into this insane argument, isn't it easy to understand how we ended up with a guy as dumb and inarticulate as Bush in the White House?

I mean when you have a media that dwells on these things, you don't get a qualified president, you get a guy you would want to go drinking and bowling with, which is what we have in Bush.

Posted by cm | April 23, 2008 10:17 PM

I dunno, undecided - by that logic, Hillary would lose Wisconsin, Maryland, Connecticut, Minnesota, Delaware, Maine, Washington and (let's say) Oregon in a general election since she lost those states in the primaries, right?

I'm talking about one state - the one I live in. If he's the nominee, Obama will lose Pennsylvania in November.

Many of my friends are hard-line Democrats and few of them trust him. Too many question marks. No sale on the pretty speeches.

If his name was Casey or Scranton, he could be polka-dotted and carry the state. That's the way things are around here.

Posted by Undecided | April 23, 2008 10:35 PM

A general point about threatened defections: in any election you care to name, you'll find voters crossing party lines - often around 6-7% of either party. Given that, and the fact that we are in the midst of a tough primary fight, I am not surprised, and not too worried about the number of people threatening to leave the Democrats. Some of it is just pique that a given candidate might not get it, some of it is just people getting out of bed the wrong side, some of it is messaging so as to avoid giving the other side electability arguments, and some of it is business as usual.

Consider the contrast: why is McCain not romping ahead in the polls? He isn't breaking any records even now - and had a lot of very weak performances in the Republican primary. That suggests a weak candidate, before any of the negative campaign against him really starts. He's dull on the stump, seems not to know his own policies, and frankly isn't very interested in the economy, which is the redmeat issue of the day. Throw in Iraq and El Toxico, and I don't see McCain having more than a 30% chance in the general.

Posted by telchar | April 23, 2008 11:01 PM

She's won in all the big states except for MO and she lost by 1%

Wow. Another whopper from EWard.

States with more people than Missouri that Obama has won: Illinois, Georgia, Virginia, Washington. And you can soon add North Carolina and possibly Indiana to that list. And he's won the seven next largest states after Missouri. None of these states count, of course, since Obama won them.

Every time each of you demeans Hillary's side, it makes us more determined. Listen to yourselves describe Hillary and her voters as: low information voters

I wonder if the constant stream of misstatements, errors, and downright lies has anything to do with that.

Posted by Marc | April 23, 2008 11:11 PM

"Hillary is and always has been the least electable among all major Democratic candidates."

She received over 15,000,000 votes. You're right, she's really unelectable.

"as Sullivan posted recently, his support always goes up as he campaigns"

He campaigned for 6 weeks in PA, spent over $11 million dollars, and lost.

"You can whine about "silencing voices," but then fudge the numbers, silence even more voices, and create new metrics in order to put "our gal" ahead in the only way possible."

Silencing the voters of MI and FL will hurt the Democratic nominee in November.

"If one can take a step back from the Clinton spin, one can easily see that she is by far the least electable Democrat. Edwards or Dodd or Biden would do better than she would."

If they are better than Hillary, why didn't they win a single primary or caucus state?

Posted by EWard | April 23, 2008 11:12 PM

And if Hillary's better than Obama, why has he won nearly twice as many primaries and caucuses than her?

And quit it with the silencing the voices thing. Clinton's current spin is "I'm ahead (if you silence the voices of more than 1/4 of the states)!!!" And the only way- seriously, the only way- she can win is if the superdelegates overturn the result of the pledged delegates. There is no better example of "silencing the voices" than that.

Of course, you've already admitted that you don't care about Democrats or the progressive agenda, just Hillary, so I don't know why I bother responding to your garbage.

Posted by 55 | April 23, 2008 11:29 PM

55

"the only way-she can win is if the superdelegates overturn the result of the pledged delegates. There is no better example of "silencing the voices" than that.

I'm going to let Erudite Hillbilly answer for me-

Newsflash for you Obama supporting hypocrites - when Obama supporters used the caucus process to nullify the popular vote advantage in Texas and other states, you claimed "those are the rules". Well guess what? you've lost the moral authority to complain if Hillary takes the nomination by winning over superdelegates. If the caucus gains by Obama are/were valid because "them's the rules", then if Hillary wins through superdelegates, them's the rules too.

Posted by Erudite Hillbilly | April 23, 2008 1:13 PM

Posted by EWard | April 24, 2008 12:07 AM

So you admit that the only way she can win is by the superdelegates overturning the pledged delegates? Good, we're on the same page.

While I concede that that is technically within the rules, I'm confident that it won't happen, because it'd be party suicide.

Of course, you are the person that admits to caring only about Hillary, not the Democratic Party or its agenda, so I realize you're not too concerned with the prospect of party suicide.

Posted by 55 | April 24, 2008 12:13 AM

EWard-

Let me paint a scenario for you.

Let's say you get what you want - a HRC nomination as a result of the SuperD's going against the pledged delegate (including FL and MI) and popular vote (including FL, sorry can't give you MI on this one) leader.

And let's suppose she wins the GE - she squeaks out a win over McCain in an extremely low turnout election as neither side is enthused about their nominee (McCain not trusted by his party's base, HRC b/c of the intra-party fight).

Here's my crystal ball: Repubs go full obstructionist for the first two years, and she really can't do much about it b/c she has no political capital to cash in (and don't tell me that Repubs will work with a Pres HRC like they have a Senator HRC - not going to happen). Past history shows the Clintons only care about electing themselves (see Bill's presidency, HRC's campaign). You thought the '94 midterms were bad, wait til '10. We lose the House and Senate. And then a completely unified Republican party sweeps back into office in '12. And the liberal/progressive agenda is set back forever.

Is there downside risk with Obama, that he could end up as McGovern or Dukakis? Sure, but I doubt it - I think he's a far better candidate then Dukakis and his coalition is bigger than McGovern's. But the upside is so much greater. To quote the Man, it's worth it to "roll the dice", no?

Posted by mbuchel | April 24, 2008 12:48 AM

mbuchel, if you read above, EWard admits to not caring about getting a Democrat elected. It's Hillary or else.

Posted by 55 | April 24, 2008 12:56 AM

I read, but I'm just trying to flesh out what the HRC side sees in the future.

In my experience, Bill, Hill, and their supporters are cut from the same cloth: All tactics but no vision. Example, the alignment with the right wing noise machine now even though they'll turn on them later. I can't tell you how many times I've read Clintonistas talking about how fair and balanced Fox, Scaife, Hannity, etc. are. It's commedy!

Posted by mbuchel | April 24, 2008 1:08 AM

"Obama does fine among white working class voters once you get out of the South and past Appalachia."

Obama does fine with white voters who don't live near any black people.

Posted by stuffwhitepeoplelike | April 24, 2008 1:40 AM

mbuchel is on to something. But he/she forgets one thing. A HRC presidency would not have the support of Congressional Dems either. You don't thinking they don't remember '94? I can guarantee that Pelosi will not let the Clintons do that a second time. Plus, who is going to defend them when the inevitable slimy scandal happens? Not a single Dem interested in winning an election would do it and then there are the proncipled Dems in safe seats that won't do it either. So I guess it going to be that immoral of Lanny Davis. If the superdellegates cared about anything, they will do everything in their power to keep Lanny Davis off my tv.

Seriously, an HRC presidency will be in jeopardy after the 1st and inevitable scandal. No one but the dead enders will support them at that point. With negatives over 50% going into office, she is one scandal away from GWB territory. And considering how badly she has screwed up health care (secrecy, manipulation and threats) and her own campaign (good job Brownie), HRC has proven herself to be immensely incompetent as a manager. Plus her and Bill are just the closest thing we have in politics to Hot Ghetto Mess. They are a scandal waiting to happen and just as this primary has shown, despite all the press about how much she's changed, at 60 quite frankly you are too old to change.

I always thought Republicans, Joe Klein and Hitchens were mentally ill about the Clintons. Now however Ihave definitely reconsidered. While they may have gone overboard, there is a fundamental defect that they have which is quite disgusting.

I actually cannot think of a more fitting end for them than like this. They were able to leave office after impeachment as heroes. Now their legacy finally gets the tarnish it deserves. No matter what they do from here on out, they will not be able to recover their reputations from this and I say good.

Posted by Bubba | April 24, 2008 2:50 AM

stuffwhitepeoplelike,

Actually, there are in fact black people living outside the South and west of Appalachia--and for that matter, Appalachia is not exactly known for having a lot of black people. Indeed, if you look at a state like Ohio, he did worst in the Appalachian parts, where very few black people live, and better in places where at least a few black people live. It was the same in Pennsylvania, which basically ended up being a mirror image of Ohio around their border in Appalachia: Obama did worst in the very white Appalachian areas of the state (losing some very white counties by like 50 points), and doing better in the non-Appalachian parts, even where there were at least some black people. For that matter, consider that Allegheny County--Pittsburgh and its inner suburbs, and in the Appalachian region--is 12.4% black, and went 54% for Clinton. Delaware County--to the immediate south of Philly, demographically similar to Allegheny County, but outside Appalachia--is 14.5% black. It went 55% for Obama. Obviously, the black percentages do almost nothing to explain why Allegheny County went strong for Clinton, and Delaware County went strong for Obama, which is really a microcosm of the whole contest.

So, this is another myth, because if you look in detail (at the level of whether white and black people really are living together in the same communities, as opposed to the same states) the pattern doesn't hold. And again, the logical explanation for the real pattern is that what you are mostly looking at is a combination of affinity for the Clintons and machine politics, not white racists being unwilling to vote for Obama.

Posted by DTM | April 24, 2008 6:53 AM

A democrat can't win without the white working class and Obama has proved he can't get it--it's an aberration when he does. All I know is I'm about a loyal a democrat as there is and I'm voting McCain if it's Obama and I know SO many people who feel the same way. I sit shaking my head as my party heads once again toward nominating a FAR left candidate. American is a moderate country and he's too extreme for many. The swing voters are called swing for a reason and they will swing to the GOP if it's Obama. He can't win with blacks and liberals only. The math isn't there. That's the electability argument that is fact. Oh sure his campaign is screaming that the black vote is just as important and will carry him through, but the facts are, and this isn't racist, there are more white voters and the conservation democrats who swing elections along with independents have deserted him along with Hillary's base.

Posted by Todd | April 25, 2008 9:26 PM

All I know is I'm about a loyal a democrat as there is and I'm voting McCain if it's Obama

You're the most loyal democrat that there is. Have a cookie!

Posted by scythia | April 25, 2008 9:29 PM

The Obama supporters who scream that Clinton is "destroying" the party (and Sullivan is one of the worst offenders) are laughable. Like your candidate, you need to toughen up. It isn't destroying our party for someone to not drop out when you demand it. It's a race. And there are rules and dropping out isn't required. Obama is the one destroying the party as he drags us down with his continued farce of a campaign. It's not hopeful and it's not honest. He has never united anyone or done anything bi-partisan. He's weak, he's shown a complete lack of character, and by showing himself to be supportive of a racist and that he himself is not particularly patriotic, he is jeopardizing our chances in the fall. All the Obama supporters want is for him to have an easy ride since he isn't up for anything else. But that doesn't equate to Clinton destroying anything simply because she won't get out of the way.

Posted by CindyH | April 25, 2008 9:32 PM

Scythia--I'll trade you the cookie for the new Folgers Obama blend--new for '08--bitter and weak.

Posted by Todd | April 25, 2008 9:37 PM