It's primary night -- again. Barack Obama is on the verge of eliminating Hillary Clinton to win the Democratic presidential nomination -- again. And Clinton -- her campaign broke and written off by the pundits -- wins. Again.
This time it's Pennsylvania -- home of Punxsutawney Phil, the rodent made famous by the movie "Groundhog Day," in which Bill Murray is forced to relive the same day, over and over. So it is with the Democratic Party in this never-ending campaign season.
"Some counted me out and said to drop out," the victorious Clinton declared here Tuesday night. "But the American people don't quit. And they deserve a president who doesn't quit, either."
On other Tuesday nights through the winter and spring, Democrats waited to see whether Obama would finally put it away -- in New Hampshire, in California and the other Super Tuesday states, and then in Ohio and Texas. Each time, Clinton narrowly survived. This time, the candidates had nearly two months to persuade Pennsylvania voters to deliver a definitive result -- and again the race was left in limbo.
With history repeating itself as farce, the exhausted reporters covering the Democratic seesaw decided to take matters into their own hands. Instead of accepting a Clinton win, the media announced in advance that, to be declared the victor, she had to beat a point spread -- a point spread determined by, well, the media.
"If Clinton wins by more than 10 points," decreed CNN's Bill Schneider, "her campaign will have new momentum and she will soldier on."
"At least 10 percentage points," the Los Angeles Times concurred, citing unnamed superdelegates.
Even foreigners wanted in on the game. Britain's Guardian newspaper said Clinton "needs to win by a margin of 10 percent or more."
Dan Balz, The Post's magnanimous chief political writer, suggested alternatives. "Some say Clinton needs to win by 10 points," he wrote. "Others say eight points. "Some say . . . anything over five points would be a respectable victory."
Clearly, setting the spread is not a science -- but there is some justification for it. Before Tuesday, Clinton trailed Obama in the popular vote, in delegates won and in states won -- and it will be difficult for her to persuade the party's superdelegates to make her the Democratic nominee if she can't win one of those categories. Even the easiest of those hurdles, a deficit of 700,000 in the popular vote, can't be erased without lopsided wins here and in the remaining primary states.
The campaigns must have agreed with the logic of the spread game, for they began to play it themselves.
The Obama campaign began Tuesday morning with an e-mailed memo to "interested parties." It pointed out that, in polls, Clinton "led by as much as 25 points." And it quoted the Philadelphia Inquirer saying she needs to "take the state big, perhaps by double digits."
The Clinton campaign retaliated with its own memo, also to "interested parties," asking: "Shouldn't he be the one expected to win tonight?"
Late in the afternoon, the early round of exit polls came in: A four-point Clinton advantage. By any other standard, that would presage a win. But by the standards of the spread, it hinted at crushing defeat.
Urgent action was required. Clinton campaign Chairman Terry McAuliffe and booster Lanny Davis left the Park Hyatt -- scene of the Clinton primary party -- and took their case to the Fox News camera near a bus stop on Broad Street. How big a win does Clinton need? "A win is a win," McAuliffe decreed.
Another Clinton adviser, Ann Lewis, went to the camera risers in the ballroom. "A win is a win," she echoed.
Except when it's not.
In the Hyatt ballroom, the crowd gave an energetic cheer when the CNN screen showed the first returns: Clinton leading, 65 percent to 35 percent. "Yes, she can!" they cheered, perhaps not noticing that only 3,000 votes had been counted.
The journalists were unimpressed. "A minute 40 left," somebody called out. Until polls closed? No -- in the Philadelphia Flyers' hockey game.
At 9 p.m., word spread that the Associated Press had called the race for Clinton. Minutes later, CNN flashed "Clinton Wins Penn. Primary" on the screen, and the crowd gave an extended cheer. Only those looking at the fine print noticed that the margin had shrunk to 52 to 48 -- not enough to beat the spread.
"A win is a win," McAuliffe repeated, on CNN. "We were outspent three to one," he pleaded.
The pundits disagreed.
"It's also so much about the margin of victory for Hillary Clinton," CNN host Campbell Brown reminded viewers.
"She needed a big victory," David Gergen agreed. "The numbers we're looking at so far suggest she did not. . . . For a blowout victory, it has to be above 10 points."
In the Hyatt ballroom, the Clinton campaign battled against that view. "There'll be all this discussion about the margin, the over and under and all that stuff," Philadelphia Mayor Michael Nutter told the crowd, which responded with boos. "A win is a win."
Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell, taking the microphone next, challenged those "talking about our shrinking margin." Said Rendell: "It's 10:15 and our margin is growing." It was true -- Clinton's advantage had edged toward the magic 10-point spread ordained by the commentariat. The candidate, with her mother, husband and daughter, sounded many of the same underdog themes she uttered on earlier primary nights: "no wavering in the face of adversity," fighting for "everyone who's ever been counted out," and, of course, disproving the "pundits [who] questioned whether Pennsylvanians would trust me."
Mostly, however, she defied Obama. "He broke every spending record in this state trying to knock us out of this race," she declared. "Well, the people of Pennsylvania had other ideas tonight."
And now, Punxsutawney Hillary and the Democrats get to do the whole thing all over again, two weeks from now, in Indiana.
it doesnt matter who i favor, maybe you didnt understand my question it wasnt about delegates. i asked if he won any big states besides illinois, not did he get more delegates. by win i meant the majority of votes. and from what you are saying georgia is the only large state he won the majority right?
you have to understand that g-man has spent the last 7 years of his life believing that winning and majority are two separate things.
To argue otherwise, is to end up like those Moonbats who still want to whine that Al Gore "won" the 2000 election, even though Bush won the electoral vote that actually decided the Presidency.
And, as if on cue...
Originally Posted By: Friendly Neighborhood Ray-man
you have to understand that g-man has spent the last 7 years of his life believing that winning and majority are two separate things.
As I said before, in the end, the winner is whomever claims the most delegates. That's the only standard that counts in terms of the nomination.
Obama took more delegates in Texas than Clinton. By any measure that matters, that's a win.
To argue otherwise, is to end up like those Moonbats who still want to whine that Al Gore "won" the 2000 election, even though Bush won the electoral vote that actually decided the Presidency.
Last month, Rachel Maddow was making that same point on MSNBC and was instantly rebuked by Joe Scarbourough.
His logic? Well, his logic was that MSNBC reported Hillary winning the day after the Texas vote, therefore, no matter that the final count wasn't in till much much later, the fact that MSNBC declared Hillary the winner a month or so ago (based on incomplete data) was something that apparently was set in stone and unchangeable.
As predicted, Pennsylvania changed nothing. Obama still leads Hillary by 131 delegates overall,and 156 pledged (not "super") delegates:
Quote:
NBC News has allocated so far a 75-65 split for Clinton out of Pennsylvania; 18 delegates are not allocated yet.
With that, Obama now leads by 156 pledged delegates: 1,482-1,326.
Our superdelegate total is Clinton 262, Obama 237.
In all, Obama now leads by 131 overall: 1,719-1,588.
The Pennsylvania campaign, which produced yet another inconclusive result on Tuesday, was even meaner, more vacuous, more desperate, and more filled with pandering than the mean, vacuous, desperate, pander-filled contests that preceded it.
Voters are getting tired of it; it is demeaning the political process; and it does not work. It is past time for Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton to acknowledge that the negativity, for which she is mostly responsible, does nothing but harm to her, her opponent, her party and the 2008 election.
If nothing else, self interest should push her in that direction. Mrs. Clinton did not get the big win in Pennsylvania that she needed to challenge the calculus of the Democratic race....
It is getting to be time for the superdelegates to do what the Democrats had in mind with they created superdelegates: settle a bloody race that cannot be won at the ballot box. Mrs. Clinton once had a big lead among the party elders, but has been steadily losing it, in large part because of her negative campaign. If she is ever to have a hope of persuading these most loyal of Democrats to come back to her side, let alone win over the larger body of voters, she has to call off the dogs.
I think what they're actually saying is that they-being unbiased members of the press and all-are really getting scared that a bloody campaign might-shudder-allow a Republican to get elected President in 08.
I'm sure they would not agree but that is what it boils down to. Obama just lost one of the biggest states by double digits. He had two months with a huge money advantage going in & couldn't win it against Hillary. I hope the superdelegates take a long hard look at this win.
One of the difficulties for the superdelegates is trying to gauge how much of Hillary's win was actual support and how much was Rush Limbaugh fucking with the Democrat Party.
It can scarcely be denied that Rush Limbaugh's "Operation Chaos" helped build Hillary's 10-point margin in Pennsylvania. More than 160,000 Republican voters switched their registration to Democrat in advance of Tuesday's primary, and undoubtedly many of those were hard-core 'Dittoheads' who did just what Limbaugh has been suggesting for weeks: Vote for Hillary, in order to produce a deadlock in the Democratic presidential nomination fight.
Also, if Clinton is behind in both the popular vote and pledged delegates, as seems very likely, what would the consequences be of nominating her anyway? Would turning off large numbers of young voters, blacks, and enthusiastic small donors be even worse than rolling the dice with Obama?
(That's not a rhetorical question. I am actually wondering what the net effect here would be)
At the same time, I'm sure some of the superdelegates will be wondering: if Barack Obama's problems with white working class voters in key states like Ohio and Pennsylvania carry over into the general election, where is he going to make up that lost ground? If Hillary Clinton, Wellsley graduate and feminazi, can beat Obama among culturally conservative blue-collar Democrats -- including pro-life Catholics -- won't John McCain?
Of course, being democrats, and obsessed with affirmative action, race, gender and class, I have a feeling the superdelegates will really be looking at which "oppressed class" needs a bigger boost: women or black men.
Actually I think at this point polling suggests that more Hillary supporters won't be voting for Obama than the other way around G-man. That makes sense because Obama falls further to the left than Hillary. An Obama supporter would probably have more of a problem with McCain on the issues than a Hillary supporter.
That makes sense because Obama falls further to the left than Hillary.
I think Obama's supporters tend to fall further to the left. But, realistically, other than posturing here and there for political purposes, most of their positions are equally extreme.
When Bill was in the White House, Hillary was the one who consistently tried to pull him to the left on issues.
Now that she's running for President she tries to come off as more moderate but I think that is, as noted above, posturing.
That makes sense because Obama falls further to the left than Hillary.
I think Obama's supporters tend to fall further to the left. But, realistically, other than posturing here and there for political purposes, most of their positions are equally extreme.
When Bill was in the White House, Hillary was the one who consistently tried to pull him to the left on issues.
Now that she's running for President she tries to come off as more moderate but I think that is, as noted above, posturing.
I would argue that it's more than just posturing. When voting records are examined Obama gets rated as the most liberal.
Wouldn't it be better that Obama became the democratic candidate? I mean, I've heard that Hillary is the "Arch-democrat"
Surely someone who is an "Arch-anything" can't be a good choice...
Hilary has been more of a centrist than Obama in the Senate. A lot of the arch talk is leftover bitterness from the Big Willy years. The far right through everything at Bill they could and he didnt get derailed and their is still a lot of bitterness still directed at Hilary.
Hilary has been more of a centrist than Obama in the Senate.
Being "more of a centrist than Obama in the Senate" hardly makes one a moderate. And, it's not necessarily the case that she is more centrist at all.
The media and other groups typically discuss how "liberal", "moderate" or "conservative" a Senator is according to their ACU scoring. Under this scoring process, Senators and Represenatives are rated from "0" to "100." The lower the score, the more liberal the politician is.
Hillary's lifetime ranking is a "9", only one point higher than Obama's "8."
Similar analyses have been performed by the liberal group Americans for Democratic Action. These rankings score politicians from zero up to 100 also, but use a different methodology in which the higher the score means the more liberal a Senator is.
Under the ADA scoring system Hillary's voting record is scored as tied with Obama's.
And those aren't the only groups that have found her record to be very liberal. For example, a 2004 analysis by political scientists at Stanford University found her to be the sixth-to-eighth-most liberal Senator.
I realize that Hillary's spin machine has been working hard to fool people in other states into thinking she's a moderate. However, she is, unfortunately, my Senator. So I see how she operates every day. And, while she may be talking a moderate game to fool people in other states, on average she is no better than Obama on the bulk of issues.
Oh, and one more thing. I'll let PJP get in the last word on this post:
Originally Posted By: The New Adventures of Old PJP
The media and other groups typically discuss how "liberal", "moderate" or "conservative" a Senator is according to their ACU scoring. Under this scoring process, Senators and Represenatives are rated from "0" to "100." The lower the score, the more liberal the politician is.
Well, it is an oft-cited ranking used by various groups.
But I assumed that you'd decide to attack the source for one reason or another, since it contradicted what you wrote. That's why I cited several sources to back up what I was saying.
If you have an alternate source, that shows she isn't about as liberal as Obama and/or isn't one of the most liberal Senators, feel free to cite it.
Wouldn't it be better that Obama became the democratic candidate? I mean, I've heard that Hillary is the "Arch-democrat"
Surely someone who is an "Arch-anything" can't be a good choice...
Hilary has been more of a centrist than Obama in the Senate. A lot of the arch talk is leftover bitterness from the Big Willy years. The far right through everything at Bill they could and he didnt get derailed and their is still a lot of bitterness still directed at Hilary.
Example G-man.
Well, I wasn't only talking about her political views, also the way people look at her
It's not Hillary Clinton, it's HILlaRy CLINton if you know what I mean?
The Arch-democrat, the one democrat that people would vote against simply because of who she is. I've heard something like that
So, last night, the pundits were giddy over Hillary Clinton's double digit victory over Obama. One problem, it didn't happen. The actual margin, according to the Pennsylvania Secretary of State, with 99.44% of precincts reporting is 9.2%. There are 42 precincts left to be counted. Clinton was always supposed to win PA by a wide margin. But, Obama cut her lead in half by improving on key demographics over Ohio. 9.2% isn't over 10%. Just isn't. It might creep up a bit (CNN now has the margin at 9.4%). It still won't break 9.5% or the magical 10% -- or 10.5% as required by the king of the punditry, Mark Halperin:
Quote:
She has to win the popular vote by more than 10.5% or the media will say she didn’t beat expectations (and her Ohio margin).
Again, didn't happen. but it does take the argument away from MEM that the media is biased against her. After all, i don't see them stating that Obama won Texas or shouting loudly that Hillary won less than 10% (although to be fair, I'll wait till tomorrow's paper arrives to be 100% certain of that. Doubt it highly though)
Also, let's get something straight: Contrary to the spin and the gullibility of the punditry to be spun, Clinton is now on a one-state winning streak. After February 5th, Clinton lost 11 in a row (those still count). On March 4th, Clinton won two (Ohio and Rhode Island) while losing two (Vermont and Texas -- yes, she lost Texas, it's about delegates, remember). She then lost two more, Wyoming and Mississippi, before winning Pennsylvania by a smaller margin than expected. That's a one-state streak -- and she still can't win the nomination.
Despite MEM and the the Clinton campaign's spinning frenzy, there is an end in sight. Jed does the delegate math -- because this is about the delegates -- and comes up with a couple of plausible scenarios. Here's his conclusion:
Quote:
Over the next two weeks, Barack Obama (and us, as his supporters) should focus his most of his energy on winning both North Carolina and Indiana. Hopefully, that results in two wins, ending the campaign.
On a parallel track, Democratic Party officials who understand that Obama will be the nominee should work to secure 170 or so commitments by superdelegates to join the Pelosi Club.
This sets up a perfect narrative. Either Plan A works -- we win North Carolina and Indiana -- or we move on to Plan B, and by winning Oregon on May 20, Barack Obama will cross the finish line and become the nominee.
Either way, if we head down this path, there's a 95%+ certainty that on May 6 or May 20 we will be celebrating Barack Obama as the presumptive nominee of the Democratic Party.
Until that point, who cares about the spin of the media? I find it annoying so I just turn the television off.
We're going to win. It's not a question of whether or if. It's just a question of how and when.
And I think that on May 6 or May 20, one of these two plans will allow Barack Obama to win -- not by default, but by triumph.
So what do you think? Are you ready? Let's close this out!
*** We can stop the delegate math: Turning to the delegate math, if Clinton nets approximately 16 delegates out of Pennsylvania, she'll trail in the pledged battle by 150 delegates. With just 408 pledged delegates remaining, that means she'd need 68% of all pledged delegates left to overtake Obama. Now, if Obama and Clinton simply split the 187 delegates up for grabs on May 6 basically down the middle (which would be a rosy projection in Clinton's favor) and Obama's pledged delegate lead simply stayed at 150 and didn’t grow to 160 (the most likely outcome in two weeks), Clinton would need to win 85% of the then 221 remaining delegates up for grabs. 85%! As we mentioned on air last night, the battle for pledged delegates is over, Obama will win that metric and win it by some 100+ delegates.
It's the mathematical equivalent of sniper fire. Hillary's campaign is alleging that they overtook Obama in the popular vote last night! Of course, it isn't true, but hey, I guess it depends on what the definition of truth is. Even though Hillary is still half a million votes behind Obama, including primaries and caucuses, her campaign is of course now adding in the votes from Florida and Michigan - which were disqualified by the DNC. So, yes, if you add imaginary votes to the count then Hillary does take the lead in imaginary-land (hey, I'm more than happy to make her our party's imaginary nominee). What was David Geffen's now infamous line about the Clintons that got him into so much trouble with Hillary?
Originally Posted By: David Geffen
Everybody in politics lies, but they do it with such ease, it’s troubling.
As an aside, anybody else notice how quickly Hillary is willing to chuck Iowa and New Hampshire overboard? The reason Florida and Michigan got into trouble is because they moved their primaries and caucuses too far up, threatening Iowa's and New Hampshire's first-in-the-nation status. Hillary was all for Iowa and NH having that status when she wanted their votes. Now, not so much. Oh, that's the truth thing again. Sorry, I forgot. (Oh, and they also lied here, claiming that ABC validated their wacky math - ABC didn't, and called them on it.)
Speaking of lies, can't let the week end without acknowledging another Bill Lie:
Wow! On the day before the Pennsylvania election, Bill Clinton cries reverse racism and then denies he ever said it. Again, as if modern recording technology doesn't exist in their world. I'm sure there was no intended audience for that sly bit of bullshit. No sireeeee.
One problem with your spin on the delegate math Whomod. It's quite likely their not going to split evenly. If Hillary or Obama don't win states that they were expected to win then I think you'll see the superdelegates go less evenly.
It is abundantly clear that the Clintons, working with FOX News and manipulating old Clinton staffers like George Stephanopoulos, are trying, at least unconsciously, to so damage Barack Obama that he will be perceived as "unelectable" to Democratic superdelegates. It is also clear that the campaign of defamation against Obama has resulted in higher negative ratings for Hillary Clinton. She therefore is threatening the Democratic Party's chances for the White House, whether or not she is the nominee.
We have come full circle; the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy and its main media wing, Fox News, is headed by the Clintons themselves. Not since Number Six unmasked Number One to find himself staring back at him on The Prisoner have we seen such an ironic climax.
It's a twist ending worthy of an M. Night Shayamalan movie.
Okay, read one more analysis of the current state of play in the Democratic nomination process. This one is from Charlie Cook, who is pretty much the sage for conventional wisdom -- in more of a measured, thoughtful, research-driven and fact-based way than say, Mark Halperin or the other hysterical pundits. When Charlie Cook speaks, a lot of people listen and learn:
Quote:
The good news for Hillary Rodham Clinton is that she’s winning a lot of battles. The bad news is that the war is pretty much lost. Sure, she won Pennsylvania’s April 22 primary by a strong 9 points in the face of being outspent on television ads by Barack Obama 2-to-1. She also won Ohio, Rhode Island, and at least the primary part of the bizarre “Texas two-step” primary-and-caucus combination on March 4. But today, she is 133 delegates behind Obama, 1,728 to 1,595, according to NBC News. At this point last week, she trailed by 136 delegates. Since then Clinton has scored a net gain of 10 delegates in Pennsylvania, according to NBC, but has lost a few more superdelegates, so she has made little headway.
If this contest were still at the point where momentum, symbolism, and reading tea leaves mattered, Clinton would be in pretty good shape. Everything she has needed to happen is happening now. Obama is getting tougher press coverage and critical examination. He’s also getting rattled a bit, and he didn’t perform well in the recent debate in Philadelphia. Clinton is winning in big, important places, but it’s happening about three months too late.
At the end of the day, the popular vote for the Democratic nomination means nothing. I doubt that having won the popular vote in the 2000 general election is of much solace to Al Gore. Many a football team gains more yards than its opponent in a game yet loses on that important technicality called points.
Also, this paragraph says so much:
Quote:
But you can’t change how the game is played once it has begun. The Democrats have decided that the nominee will be determined by the number of delegates won, not by the popular vote, and that primaries held in direct violation of party rules (in this case, Florida’s and Michigan’s) don’t count. End of discussion.
"I'm very proud that as of today, I have received more votes by the people who have voted than anybody else, and I am proud of that," Clinton said at a rally in Indianapolis. "It's a very close race, but if you count, as I count, the 2.3 million people who voted in Michigan and Florida, then we are going to build on that."
"If you count as I count"? How about not? How about we don't because those were the agreed upon terms. No backsies.
I am truly convinced that if the results were reversed and Obama was down and tried to loop in the popular vote from states where all candidates agreed not to campaign (especially any state where Clinton's name wasn't even on the ballot!), her camp would be crying foul so fast it would make your head spin.
By Hillary's logic, people who commit voter fraud should also have their votes counted.
Granted, if the tables were turned, Obama might be the one making the argument to count illegal votes. However, at this point, he's not the one making that pitch, she is.
The best political joke of 2008 was Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell's (R-Ky.) at the Washington Press Club Foundation's dinner in February -- about how the Democratic race featured Hillary Rodham Clinton, a New York Senator born in Illinois, and Barack Obama, an Illinois Senator "who seems to have been born in a manger."
Except, the joke isn't valid any more. The long, contentious Democratic primary battle has reduced Obama from a messiah -- except among his most ardent disciples -- to an ordinary mortal.
He started out largely unknown to the public, delivering a message of unity and post-partisanship that the country clearly is hungering for. He also seemed to offer the country a chance to move beyond its historic racial divisions. And he promised to rise above customary slash-and-burn politics.
He's still a formidable force, but he's been brought back to ordinary dimensions as voters have gotten to know him -- and, as primary results in New Hampshire, New Jersey, California, Texas, Ohio and now Pennsylvania show, he can't "close the deal" to end Clinton's challenge and wrap up the nomination.
The Clinton campaign managed to polarize the contest racially -- despite his heated denials, Bill Clinton did liken Obama to the Rev. Jesse Jackson in South Carolina -- and Obama has had to resort to negative campaigning to counterpunch at Clinton.
He's also now revealed as the most liberal Member of the U.S. Senate -- and one who has never, ever departed from party orthodoxy to form the kind of bipartisan coalition he says -- correctly -- that it will take to solve America's problems.
It's all about "vetting." When somebody has been in national life for only three years and is running for the highest office in the land, it's only natural that voters -- and journalists -- find out what the candidate is made of, what his character is.
Which is why it was perfectly appropriate for ABC News interrogators Charlie Gibson and George Stephanopoulos to ask questions about Obama's remark that small-town Pennsylvanians "cling" to their guns and religion because they are "bitter," about his refusal to wear a flag pin and about his association with radicals such as former Weatherman Bill Ayers and the Rev. Jeremiah Wright.
Obama did get hard questions, but when Clinton was the frontrunner, she got hard questions, too. She whined at the time. Then, he did. And his media claque whined even louder.
The "character" questions were also appropriate because they are the substance of the Clinton campaign's case against Obama -- that he can't beat Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) because he can't carry white working-class voters, Hispanics, Catholics, Ohio, Florida -- maybe even Massachusetts and New Jersey.
All that's partly about race, Clinton campaign officials acknowledge, but it's also about class. "People who have the luxury of hope go for Obama," one aide told me. "If they are college-educated and buy lattes at Starbucks, they're for him.
"But if people are really hurting, facing foreclosure or in danger of losing a job or health insurance, they're for her."
It's still likely that Obama will win the nomination. Clinton's 10-point victory in Pennsylvania closed his overall delegate advantage by only 15 -- down to 127 -- and cut his popular vote lead by 215,000, down to 501,000. Those Clinton gains probably will be wiped out on May 6 if he wins big in North Carolina and it's close in Indiana.
"Obama is depending on arithmetic and Clinton is banking of psychology," said former Democratic National Committee Executive Director Mark Siegel. "She's hoping that superdelegates will have an epiphany, deciding he's unelectable.
"But superdelegates also have to be thinking, 'if we deny him the nomination when he's ahead, it could alienate blacks and young people, the party's base and future, and be dangerous for the party.
"Superdelegates were created to be pragmatists, look at electability and save the party from going over a cliff. But if they take it away from Obama, the press will say that 'party bosses' did it in 'smoke-filled rooms.' To convince them, she needs solid empirical evidence that he'd take the party over a cliff."
As it happens, there is some. Although national polls show that Obama and Clinton both are essentially tied with McCain, Clinton does better than Obama in crucial swing states. In Ohio, an average of recent polls show McCain beating Obama by 2.6 points. Clinton beats McCain by 5 points.
In Florida, McCain beats Obama by 11.7 points but is tied with Clinton.
There certainly are states that Obama might win that Clinton probably can't -- Nevada, Iowa, even Nebraska and North Dakota -- but the latest national polling roundup assembled by former White House political chief Karl Rove shows McCain leading Obama in states with 261 of the 270 electoral votes needed to win, while against Clinton, he has 214.
Also, Republican pollster Whit Ayres told me that four focus groups he's conducted among blue-collar whites in Michigan and Missouri show "they are open to voting for Hillary Clinton, but there's no way in hell they are going for Obama. It's cultural.
"They just don't think he's a patriotic American. It's the flag pin, his church, his wife's statement that most Americans are 'mean.' As one woman said in one of these groups, 'I don't think he bleeds red, white and blue.'"
Ayres also polled Tennessee -- a GOP-leaning state -- for Sen. Lamar Alexander (R) and found that Clinton would lose to McCain by 8 points, but that Obama would lose by 20 points. Twenty-five percent of Democrats said they would not vote for Obama.
So, after Pennsylvania, the contest goes on. The next big test is Indiana, a Republican state with a slightly younger population than Pennsylvania's and higher median income but less college-educated and more rural. It's next to Obama's home state of Illinois, but its leading Democrat is Sen. (and former Gov.) Evan Bayh, who supports Clinton.
If Obama cannot close the deal there, the race likely will go on until June. At the moment, 30-odd percent of Democrats nationally tell pollsters they will either not vote or defect to McCain if their favorite does not get nominated. It won't be that bad, for sure, but it would be good for Democrats if someone closed the deal soon to reunite the party.
... At the end of the day, the popular vote for the Democratic nomination means nothing. I doubt that having won the popular vote in the 2000 general election is of much solace to Al Gore. Many a football team gains more yards than its opponent in a game yet loses on that important technicality called points.[/b]
The popular vote may not mean anything to an Obama supporter but I think superdelegates would dissagree about that. BSAMS posted something not long ago that actually asked them what they considered important factors. Having more pledged delegates wasn't at the top of the list for 90% of them. Since Obama has long sinced passed the point of being able to get enough pledged delegates to win the nomination, what the superdelegates think are important.
Quote:
Also, this paragraph says so much:
Quote:
But you can’t change how the game is played once it has begun. The Democrats have decided that the nominee will be determined by the number of delegates won, not by the popular vote, and that primaries held in direct violation of party rules (in this case, Florida’s and Michigan’s) don’t count. End of discussion.
The spin makes me dizzy. There is no rule that what was decided about Florida & Michigan must never be reconsidered. The party actually has rules that allow them to amend/reconsider/change these decisions. Probably won't happen but to pretend these things are set in stone is flatly untrue. Punishing the voters from 2 big states will have consequences btw. If the superdelegates back Obama you can probably write off Florida.
"I'm very proud that as of today, I have received more votes by the people who have voted than anybody else, and I am proud of that," Clinton said at a rally in Indianapolis. "It's a very close race, but if you count, as I count, the 2.3 million people who voted in Michigan and Florida, then we are going to build on that."
"If you count as I count"? How about not? How about we don't because those were the agreed upon terms. No backsies.
I am truly convinced that if the results were reversed and Obama was down and tried to loop in the popular vote from states where all candidates agreed not to campaign (especially any state where Clinton's name wasn't even on the ballot!), her camp would be crying foul so fast it would make your head spin.
Just because the party won't recognize the Florida & Michigan delegates it doesn't somehow retcon the fact that people did vote in those states. Those votes exist no matter if you respect them or not. There isn't a rule that keeps those votes from being included in the popular vote count.
Gay superdelegate leaning toward Clinton after Pa. win By John Wright
Dallas’ Davis Hardt says he’s ‘very disappointed’ with Obama’s showing in November swing state
If David Hardt’s opinions reflect the consensus among unpledged Democratic superdelegates, Sen. Hillary Clinton has a better chance of winning the party’s presidential nomination than most believe.
Hardt, a gay unpledged superdelegate from Dallas, said Wednesday, April 23 that he’s leaning toward supporting Clinton based on her decisive victory in the Pennsylvania primary on Tuesday, April 22.
Hardt said it marked another poor showing by Obama among white, working-class, swing voters in a state Democrats must win to defeat likely Republican nominee John McCain in November. In an interview with Dallas Voice on Wednesday, Hardt said he may commit as early as the next few days.
“I was very disappointed in Sen. Obama’s performance in Pennsylvania,” Hardt said. “If he can’t get those votes in the Democratic primary, how’s he going to get those votes in the general election?”
Hardt and the nearly 800 other Democratic superdelegates likely will decide the race between Clinton and Obama.
That’s because neither candidate can capture the 2,025 pledged delegates needed to win the nomination in the remaining contests.
Sen. Hilary Clinton (left) and Sen. Barack Obama (right)Obama currently leads Clinton, with 1,719 delegates to her 1,586. That includes the roughly 500 superdelegates who’ve committed, but another 250 remain uncommitted.
Howard Dean, chairman of the Democratic National Committee, has called on uncommitted superdelegates to make up their minds.
Hardt, a member of the DNC and president of Young Democrats of America, acknowledged that a protracted, increasingly negative campaign could hurt the party’s chances slightly in November. But he said fairness to voters in remaining states overrides that concern.
Indiana and North Carolina are next to vote, going to the polls on May 6, with the final contest coming June 3.
“I think a lot of superdelegates, myself included, don’t like the notion of party leaders trying to force people into ending the election until everyone has a chance to vote,” Hardt said. “I think that’s a bit undemocratic.”
Hardt said the remaining states are particularly important because they may determine who wins the nationwide popular vote.
Without superdelegates, Clinton isn’t expected to catch Obama in the pledged delegate count, which is why he is considered the heavy favorite at this point.
However, she could catch him in the popular vote, which he currently leads 14.4 million to 13.9 million.
It’s doubtful superdelegates would go against Obama if he wins both the pledged delegate count and the popular vote, but a victory by Clinton in the popular vote would create room for debate.
“For superdelegates that are left, it’s going to be very difficult for us to say the will of the people has said that Sen. Obama is the choice,” Hardt said, noting that Democrats were angry when Al Gore lost to George Bush in 2000 despite winning the popular vote. “It will be very difficult for us to say we have to all support Obama because he has the pledged vote.” ...
Posted: Friday, April 25, 2008 9:09 AM by Domenico Montanaro Filed Under: 2008, Clinton
In what appears to be a response to the New York Times’ editorial on Wednesday that accused the Clinton campaign of taking the “low road,” campaign chief strategist Geoff Garin has a Washington Post op-ed defending the campaign's tactics. "Our campaign runs a TV ad Monday saying that the presidency is the toughest job in the world and giving examples of challenges presidents have faced and challenges the next president will face -- including terrorism, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, mounting economic dislocation, and soaring gas prices. The ad makes no reference -- verbal, visual or otherwise -- to our opponent; it simply asks voters to think about who they believe is best able to stand the heat. And we are accused, by some in the media, of running a fear-mongering, negative ad.”
“The day before this ad went on the air, David Axelrod, Barack Obama's chief strategist, appeared with me on ‘Meet the Press.’ He was asked whether Hillary Clinton would bring ‘the changes necessary’ to Washington, and his answer was ‘no.’ This was in keeping with the direct, personal character attacks that the Obama campaign has leveled against Clinton from the beginning of this race -- including mailings in Pennsylvania that describe her as ‘the master of a broken system.’”
“So let me get this straight. On the one hand, it's perfectly decent for Obama to argue that only he has the virtue to bring change to Washington and that Clinton lacks the character and the commitment to do so. On the other hand, we are somehow hitting below the belt when we say that Clinton is the candidate best able to withstand the pressures of the presidency and do what's right for the American people, while leaving the decisions about Obama's preparedness to the voters. Who made up those rules? And who would ever think they are fair?"
For years, she was the darling of the liberal media.
Then, the liberal media found someone younger and more attractive and threw her aside.
It's the classic trap for many women of a certain age, though normally it happens with their husbands, not a news organization. And, normally, the "more attractive" refers to physical appearance, not their appeal as a candidate.
Of course, Bill's been screwing younger chicks for years so she should be used to this by now.
Hillary and her supporters have just got give this up. The longer she holds out on this, the more futile it's showing their struggle to be. The numbers themselves are showing that she's defeated, but Hill and her group are holding out swinging more superdelegates their way (which the fact that the Democratic Party has them to begin with shows just how much they don't want to be totally beholden to their voters). I seriously doubt that the Democratic Party is going to tell the black voters who voted for Obama that their votes aren't going to count. Consider how long and hard they've worked to build their black voter base. They're not going to flush all that down the toilet with the simple act of handing the nomination over to Hillary. The superdelegates show that the Dems want an out from the voting public's decisions on candidates, but I doubt they'd do anything that can and will be determined as racist. It ain't happening. Give it up already.
whomod said: I generally don't like it when people decide to play by the rules against people who don't play by the rules. It tends to put you immediately at a disadvantage and IMO is a sign of true weakness. This is true both in politics and on the internet."
I still think Hillary has a chance, because Obama has so many flaws that I don't think he can win, and Hillary arguably can.
My concern is, that Obama probably won't implode until it's too late. (Although for McCain, that's a good thing, that will hand him a victory.)
The difference between Hillary and Obama is about a 1% difference, and since Obama can't clearly win without superdelegates, supporters of either will feel cheated if their candidate loses, because ultimately the superdelegates will be handing victory to one or the other in a backroom deal that bypasses the will of Democrat voters.
One other thing that I thought was summed up well in this editorial, as quoted by Hillary herself:
As she visited the Pennsylvania polls the morning of the election Hillary Clinton taunted her opponent, asking “Why can’t he close the deal?” She got going early in the spin wars, commenting:
“A win is a win, especially under the circumstances when my opponent has outspent me probably 3 to 1, maybe 4 to 1, an enormous effort on his part on TV and radio on the phone, every way that is imaginable try to win Pennsylvania.”
But she needn’t have fretted about the margin of victory. With over 75% of the vote tabulated, she had built an impressive ten point lead and cleared the hurdle most of the self-appointed pundits in the MSM [mainstream media] had set for her, no doubt hoping their favorite son candidate Barack Obama could have at least managed to keep his loss to low single digits.
When you consider the margin by which Obama is outspending Hillary, she should be throughly trounced. But she's not. Which indicates that all the money in the world can't push Obama over the top.
The same situation as McCain vs. Romney. Except I think Romney, despite all his money, took too long to figure out what to campaign on, and reach voters with that message. Whereas Obama going forward is just hypocritical and scandal-laden. And in light of Obama's series of contradictions and gaffs, it is truly him that has kept Hillary going, and no one else.
Of course, Hillary has a chance. The real problem is that superdelegates have to figure out which victims' group they care less about offending: feminazis or race baiters.
One other thing I thought was interesting about the Pennsylvania primary, Bob Scheifer on CBS News reported a poll that over 25% of Hillary voters said they would vote for McCain if Obama is selected as the nominee.
A lesser number of Obama supporters said they would either stay home or vote for someone else if Hillary were chosen for the Democrat ticket.
I seriously doubt that the Democratic Party is going to tell the black voters who voted for Obama that their votes aren't going to count.
Originally Posted By: britneyspearsatemyshorts
it's not as if they are from michigan or florida!
It kind of bugs me that nationally, blacks overwhelmingly vote for Obama no matter what is revealed about him. In Pennsylvania 90% of blacks voted for Obama. (That demographic, along with the under-30 category were pretty much the only strong supporters of Obama in PA.)
Is it just skin-color, with no knowledge of the issues, his character, or what he stands for, that makes blacks select him?
Blacks have been the most reliable demographic supporters of the Democrats for decades, and consistently vote about 90% Democrat, in election after election, so I guess that shouldn't surprise me. So I do agree that Democrats would be very reluctant from this perspective to alienate black voters by not picking Obama for the nomination.
