Is that if Clinton wins the popular vote in Ohio and Texas, she's staying in the race.
Even if she loses the delegate race in Texas.
No doubt, this will make heads explode in Chicago.
« Mark Penn's E-mail | Main | Back To Basics On The Major Question Of The Democratic Campaign »
Bottom Line From The Clinton Spin Call
03 Mar 2008 12:24 pm
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/19691
Comments (81)
Gee. Can't see why that would bother Democrats.
We would love HRC to beat him up some more on behalf of John McCain!
Well of course she's staying in the race. Anyone that looked at these states knew that Obama should do pretty well in Ohio and Texas. It is obviously part of her strategy to lose those states. You're just part of the media that's always spinning this in a negative light for Hillary because you've always been out to get her.
She won California, what more do you need as evidence that she should be the nominee. She also won overwhelmingly in Michigan and she won in Florida as well. These are the only three states that matter, therefore she should be the nominee.
Besides, do we really trust Obama to answer the phone at 3 a.m.?
I just realized that I should probably tag that as parody, its actually too similar to what Clintonites are actually saying.
Although I am an Obama supporter and want to see this thing over and done with, I really wouldn't blame her for staying in.
Even after she gets smoked in MS and WY she can see a path to the nomination. For her, PA becomes everything. Unfortunately, losing a 20 point lead in 2 weeks in OH and TX, even if she wins, means that she will probably lose the 5-10 point lead she currently has in PA. If the polls continue to show a major move to Obama in PA, she might withdraw before then rather than suffer a humilating defeat.
Well, I expect Ohio to be its typical truculent, contrary self and come thru for her, thus bringing us to the brink of needlessly prolonging this thing. Leave it to a State that sent eight of its favorite sons to the White House before it ever got around to ratifying its statehood.
Did anybody see those idiots in Chillicothe on 60 Minutes last nite? You had to love the bozo who's leaning Obama but who has heard that Obama's "a Muslim" and "doesn't know the words to the Pledge of Allegiance."
In orinary circumstances, that would've been a good time for Steve Kroft to turn it into a pop quiz, but the man's struggling, and his wife has MS. More to the point, he's just not very bright --Ohio personified, in other words. You have to wonder where it ever found the good sense to remain loyal to the Union.
She deserves to stay in the race if she wins the most votes in Ohio and Texas. Those are big, important states, and Obama's delegate lead notwithstanding, wins in both would show she continues to be a viable candidate.
The flipside of this, of course, is she absolutely needs to get out if Obama wins either one.
The superdelegates will probably start breaking Obama's way big-time in either case, UNLESS Clinton can somehow win big (+15) in at least one of them. What sane Democrat wants 6 more weeks of Clinton tearing their likely nominee down, unless she has a genuine shot?
I really think Hillary's strategy at this point is going to be staying in as long as she has money and hoping he gets overtired and calls her a cunt in public, macaca-ing him out of the nomination
Marc you are right on with this assessment. It's all about perception here with the popular vote. If Hillary can pull out a 1 or 2 point win in Ohio, that is a massively important step to the nomination. (Anything bigger than that and you can probably just call it for HRC). Remember this is about hitting Obama's glass jaw and stopping the momentum that the media keeps harping on. One hit and the public will wake up with buyer's remorse when they realize Obama really is a fairy tale.
My thinking on this had become a little clouded last week (in part to what I will admit was a shaky debate performance by hillary). As a result I had forgotten the importance of Pennsylvania as the real firewall. With hillary's lead in the polls there and the significant number of delegates to be had, this state is far more important than anything that happens tomorrow (Although again, a narrow victory in Ohio would be huge). All Hillary as to do is survive tomorrow. The Automatic delegates know this.
Penn and company did a magnificent job borrowing a line from Mondale with the Red Phone ad. The new polls clearly show what a profound effect this has had on the american people - because it shows that when a call comes in at 3am to the White House, guess who will be fully clothed, awake and working at their desk? Hillary. Obama? probably sleeping. I bet he would be in little "hope" jammies too, lol. The point is, if this message has resonated with regular joes of the public then imagine how the automatic delegates must feel.
and then imagine how they will vote at the convention. 'nuff said.
Regarding NAFTA....Miss holier than thou is trying to be above it all?!!! Now- that is funny!
What the Clintons say now is less important than what superdelegates and party leaders do from Wednesday on.
Makes sense. Winning the popular vote would be a PR victory and thus would not make sense to drop out. They could then argue that the delegate system is flawed like they've been doing since it started working against them.
But she'll have to drop out eventually. I don't see Hillary losing the delegate race but hanging around for a few months just because of Ohio and Texas.
http://www.political-buzz.com/
When Hillary wins Ohio it will go a long way to proving her divine ordination and hopefully will provoke Obama fanatics to reconsider their allegiance. While I'm not one who sees much of the supernatural in everyday events, I think even the most sceptical amongst us should pause and consider the unseen hand that seems to be guiding Hillary's campaign and fortunes lo these past weeks.
When Hillary wins Ohio it will go a long way to proving her divine ordination and hopefully will provoke Obama fanatics to reconsider their allegiance. While I'm not one who sees much of the supernatural in everyday events, I think even the most sceptical amongst us should pause and consider the unseen hand that seems to be guiding Hillary's campaign and fortunes lo these past weeks.
Please provide the precedent for a candidate with over a thousand delegates getting out when the other candidate has no clear path to 2025 pledged delegates. I've been asking all week and there's been no precedent cited.
She has enough delegates to roll the dice at the convention. She has money still. there is no credible reason to get out.
Obama supporters are illogical.
Michael, let me ask an hypothetical question.
If the situation were reversed, don't you think Clinton supporters would be demanding Obama to drop out of the race?
Of course, Obama, being more country and party oriented, would have already dropped out, or would after tomorrow.
Fred -- "automatic delegates." LOL.
She can't catch him in pledged delegates. The super delegate (that is what they are called) are not going to reverse the pledged delegates. HRC is a dead bang loser in a general election.
All those who say that HRC shouldn't spend the next three months fighting a bloody take-no-prisoners war for the nomination are just trying to disenfranchise the voters of Puerto Rico.
She has enough delegates to roll the dice at the convention.
If she rolls the dice she might win the nomination but the democratic party loses the election.
This is Hillary's first contested campaign (after being pre-coroneted the nominee last year). She has not done well and no one has gotten nasty at her yet.
there is no credible reason to get out.
How about not hurting the party's chances in the general election? That strikes me as a credible reason for any non-sociopath.
If she stayed in the race in the same way Huckabee is staying in the Republican race, without any attempt to tear down her party's likely nominee, then, who could blame her? But it just doesn't seem in Clinton's nature not to go negative on whatever gets in the way of the coronation she thought she had coming to her.
The fact that she might decide to stay in until the convention doesn't make my head explode... And I live in Chicago.
What will make my head explode if what was reported in the Chicago Tribune Campaign Blog, The Swamp, today is true. Namely that there is at least one incident of a Clinton Campaign phone bank person refering to Sen Obama as Osama Bin Laden... And then saying, 'Oops... Slip of the tongue.'
The link is as follows:
http://weblogs.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/blog/2008/03/did_i_say_osama_i_meant_obama.html
Is this just a fake story, a rogue phone bank person, or is this happening systematically? Anyone from Ohio received a similar call?
The reality is that if Obama had lost 11 straight primaries, many by massive margins, he'd already be out... or he'd in Huckabee territory.
We wouldn't be talking seriously about him in any way.
But to even suggest this about Clinton is "media bias." If she wins the nomination, get ready for a Mondale-Reagan style landslide.
BB
The reality is that if Obama had lost 11 straight primaries, many by massive margins, he'd already be out... or he'd in Huckabee territory.
We wouldn't be talking seriously about him in any way.
But to even suggest this about Clinton is "media bias." If she wins the nomination, get ready for a Mondale-Reagan style landslide.
BB
Fred, the red phone ad is an ad for John McCain.
She'll be hoisted on her own petard in the fall (assuming she survives the nomination process). Her experience pales next to McCain, providing the GOP with clips where she lists experience as her biggest strength seals her fate in the general election.
Biden could run against McCain on experience, the junior senator from NY cannot.
John, as I pointed out to another misinformed obamite last week, the official DNC Texas party rules call them "automatic delegates". Look it up.
Of course hillary can't catch Obama in pledged delegates. However the automatic delegates won't exactly be "reversing" pledged delegates. How can you reverse something so blatantly subjective:
1. Caucuses - undemocratic sham elections.
2. MI and FL not being seated? Unconstitutional much?
3. Counting states where Obama spent much more time and money - um, unfair??
4. Counting states where Obama was better organized. Again, how is this fair?
5. Counting states that we can't win in the general - these #'s mean nothing.
Automatic delegates know this.
3. Counting states where Obama spent much more time and money - um, unfair??
4. Counting states where Obama was better organized. Again, how is this fair?
We should make her the nominee because she's incompetent manager?
The crone needs to go after tomorrow. Goodbye crone.
A hag (or crone) is a wizened old woman, or a kind of fairy or goddess having the appearance of such a woman, often found in folklore and children's tales such as Hansel and Gretel. ...
Fred, you're missing your /snark tag.
Fred, you forgot about the REAL firewall, Puerto Rico. After Hillary loses North Carolina, Mississippi, Oregon etc., she will indeed charge into Pennsylvania, where the latest poll has her up by four whole points. That could give her, oh, three or four delegates toward closing the gap, by this time about 200. When her victory in Puerto Rico comes through, the superdelegates (oops! Automatic!) will be swept away and hand Hillary the nomination, fulfilling their true mission of saving the party from a candidate whom actual people like.
Fred:
1 and 2. DNC rules are DNC rules. Caucuses weren't a surprise, the fact that Clinton chose to ignore them was. Michigan and Florida violated DNC rules and the parties, including Senator Clinton, agreed that those primaries would not count. And because these are Democratic Party events, they are not governed by the US Constitution. But I suspect you knew all of this when you wroter your post.
3. Every contest counts, whether or not one candidate spends more or less than the other, or is better organized than the other.
4. See above.
5. See # 3.
Fred,
Please show me where the Clinton camp opposed caucuses prior to the primary season.
If the "automatic" delegates don't mirror the pledged delegates then the DMC will be a laughing stock and McCain wins the election.
How could it call itself the Democratic Party when a few powerful party people can outvote the public.
It would be insane, and they know t.
I'm an Obama supporter & although it annoys me, I think she has every right to continue if she takes the popular vote in both Tx and Oh.
And I think that if such is the case, there will not be significant movement to Obama among the SDs, because she will be telling a credible story about his electibility that the SDs will listen to (at least now backed up by two recent victories).
BO himself said that he has to knock out the champ. Tomorrow is the day to do it, if he can't get it done, then they move on.
For those not in the know, Fred Agbot practices a subtle form of satire. He should not be treated seriously as a literal Clintonite, thought the differences between him and one are often very hard to detect.
Hillary could well win both states, but that doesn't solve her basic problem of being behind in delegates. It's a very close race, but someone has to lose, and the simplest way for the party to pick a winner is by delegate count. Her problem for weeks is not that she needs to win both, or win in PA, it's that she has to blow out Obama to close the gap.
It only gets more contentious from here. While a close race has been great for turnout and excitement, dragging it out for another couple of months as both sides bruise each other is not what the leadership wants.
For those not in the know, Fred Agbot practices a subtle form of satire. He should not be treated seriously as a literal Clintonite, thought the differences between him and one are often very hard to detect.
Preposterous. If you average the numerical value of the letters in "Fred" you get 8.22, which rounds down to 8 and corresponds to the letter "H" - "H" + "Agbot" = "Hagbot" and we all know that's code for a diehard Clinton op.
Google "Agbot." Fred is a parody, though whoever's doing it is weirdly devoted.
I'm an Obama supporter, but if Hillary does OK tomorrow there's no reason for her to drop out. Why shouldn't she wait on the off chance that there will be a big reversal? No one saw the first big reversal coming.
None of you see how unfair the Obama bias has been throughout this entire process? Caucuses, media coverage, red states "mattering"... I could go on and on.
The reason we have public financing rules is so that the candidates are on equal footing - why doesn't this apply to the primary? Why does obama get so many more donations, more volunteers, and better organization and no one bats an eye? That's to say nothing of air time on the news. He wins 11 primaries in a row and suddenly he's the "front runner" and gets to give his entire speech every time? You can't tell me that's just because he was the so-called "winner". That's media bias.
This entire process has been geared to defeat hillary and frankly, its incredibly unfair. Fortunately Hillary is such a strong candidate that she managed to overcome this deluge and win the states that matter like CA and NY.
Plus Hillary has an ace in the hole - the one part of this process NO ONE can call biased. Automatic delegates.
She'll survive tomorrow, carry on to win PA and Puerto Rico big, and then in a brokered convention where all the biases of this primary season will finally be behind us, the candidate with the most momentum and the best chance against John McCain in the general election will be Hillary.
Automatic delegates know this. Hillary '08!
What many HRC defenders don't seem to understand is that, while her voters might stay home in November if Obama were the nominee, Obama's supporters -- folks like me -- will be campaigning day and night for McCain if Hillary Clinton is the nominee.
I'm not the property of the Democratic Party. I can support whomever I like. And if Hillary somehow managed to steal the nomination at the convention, I would be willing to quit my job if I thought that a few months of 12-hour-a-day volunteering for McCain would do some good in a fight against the Rove Redux sleaze factory that is the Clinton Machine.
Hillary Clinton -- as yesterday's 60 Minutes interview, in which she insinuated that Barack Obama might be a Muslim, illustrated for the thousandth time -- is just an unbelieveable disgrace: a politician without even a shred of moral character or decency. (Gloria Steinem's remarks this weekend -- assuming that she cleared them with Clinton HQ -- also say a lot about Clinton's character, and her political skills. Ridiculing a POW who was tortured for five years . . . after voting to start this needless Iraq War? It doesn't get much more disgraceful than that.)
Politically, nothing is more important to me at this point than making sure that Hillary Clinton doesn't win the White House. I have a lot of concerns about McCain, but I'm not convinced that he's the scum of the earth. Clinton, meanwhile, has convinced me that it would be very hard -- perhaps impossible -- to do worse than her. In many ways, I've come to think that a Clinton presidency would be a spiritual continuation of the Bush administration.
And what if she wins the popular vote in Ohio but loses the popular vote in Texas? At that point I want to hear Bill Clinton's attempt to explain away his earlier statement that Hillary needs to win both states.
John: you ask would hillary people want obama out if the situations were reversed. the answer is no, it would not be rational to expect obama to get out with nearly half the pledged delegates: this is a tremendous race and 100+ delegates and money is a legitimate reason to stay in.
Remember dems don't have winner take all and so our party rules allow and encourage these kind of epic battles.
And John, I totally disagree that obama would've dropped out but you know if your side cares about the party on that level and want to prove it, he could step aside in this close contest and give Hillary the right of way.
History says anything can happen with these high delegate counts at the convention.
There isn't a president in history that wouldn't fight to seat florida and michigan if it benefitted them at a convention.
Winning Florida and/or Ohio after three hard weeks would be a big deal and I can understand how bummed Obama supporters will be to not talk righteously about the artifical streak.
It doesn't tear the party apart: that's hyperbole.
Doug wilder saying there will be rioting is irresponsible and stupid.
Now that it looks like this thing will never end, I've got no choice but to go on an epic bender. Then when I come to and see McCain being sworn in, I'll have no choice but to medicate myself for another four years or so.
I take issue with the Canadian paper getting a crack on early questions for this call. Lets keep press access domestic and stop outsourcing coverage to Canada.
To the hugarian great Bela tarr:
First of all, we are Hillary defenders. We are Hillary supporters.
And as to you cheap and tawdry threat or promise to vote and work against Hillary if she stays within the set nomination process and produces a win that you will vote for McCain, who cares? It is america and you get to vote and support whoever you want. These ridiculas petty threats by the crazier obama supporters have been in play for months now: are they supposed to scare democrats? The nomination process isn't completed yet and Obama doesn't have a nomination to steal so why cast it in thiose terms?
We aren't supposed to fight for our candidates success because it might hurt your feelings?
Obama has not got the nomination. He does not have a clear road to the nomination. Rational people don't expect candidates with 1000+ delegates to just drop out.
half the party has voted for hillary and we as a party can't make up our mind.
Forget the idea that obama can now get to the nomination without making nice with hillary: she rightly controls the delegates he needs to get there before the convention.
As for Steinem's comments: she said her opinion and her opinion was that being a pow does not make him a better candidate for president, and that she personally is bothered that such a premium is placed on military service in these political contests, that she also finds it makes it harder for women to assert their readiness to lead. To me these sound like comments from a person who is against war and violence and whom also celebrates free speech. if these comments make you hate Hillary, so be it.
Oh Wait, you already hated Hillary! I forgot.
enjoy your vote: it sounds like you are awfully confused whether you care about policy or personality.
No matter what the popular vote is on Wednesday, if Sen. Clinton cannot make a credible case how she can get the nomination by winning the PLEDGED/ELECTED delegates, she should step out of the race, or be forced to do so by party leaders, for the good of the party. TO drag this out beyond mathematical possibility is only hurting the party's candidate. For super-delegates to "overturn the verdict" (Nancy Pelosi) of the electorate is suicidal. Which candidate has the most cross-ver and independent appeal, and how is prolonging this campaign in a scorched-earth style affecting the race in November? What can Sen. Clinton bring to the table that Se. Obama can not? These are the questions to address on Wednesday.
Hey, this past weekend I just got back from Ohio working my butt off with 250 other volunteers for Obama. I really hope he wins, but I hope even more that we Dems stop with the hate and are able to unite over the summer behind whoever our nominee is. Again I hope it's Obama, but I am personally willing to work for Hillary if she gets it.
We have to end this 8 year "Republican-kidnapping-of-the-nation" nightmare this fall!
Who's with me?
Hillary wins Ohio by 8 points, then either Obama or Hillary wins Texas in a squeaker. RI and VT are split.
The end result: Hillary does not gain more than a handful of delegates on Obama.
This may give Hillary a reason to continue in her mind, but mathematically she goes forward with little or no chance of catching up with Obama's lead in pledged delegates in the few remaining states.
I believe that the SDs are likely to go with the candidate who won the most pledged delegates in the primaries. However, if Hillary gets them into smoke-filled rooms and the primary results are over-rode, this will lead to a divided party going into November.
Which is ironic because this was the year of record turnouts and enthusiasm....lots of new voters and independents voting for the first time, etc. Many of these will be turned off.
If this scenario occurs, the Democrats will have again found some way to snatch defeat out of the jaws of victory. 08 should have been an easy election for the Democrats to win.
There is too much talk about electability... Let the voters vote. Let the states assign delegates by the rules each state party has designated. Let the super-delegates do what they do. In the end, the party will have a candidate as per the rules established before the season began, even if it goes all the way to the convention. After we have a candidate, then let's talk about electability and whether the process could be made better somehow.
I voted for Sen Obama, but I don't think that Sen Clinton should step aside unless she decides to do it herself. Let her run. Let her work the system just as Sen Obama has. Let the winner emerge with the full backing of the party in Denver this summer.
I just wish both campaigns and their supporters would just keep the hits coming above the belt, is all. After the disapointment that was Kerry in 04, it would be a crying shame if the Democratic Party didn't take back the Whitehouse because of cheap party infighting when both candidates are strong figures (for a change) with more or less the same platform.
What many HRC defenders don't seem to understand is that, while her voters might stay home in November if Obama were the nominee, Obama's supporters -- folks like me -- will be campaigning day and night for McCain if Hillary Clinton is the nominee.
We don't have to "understand it" because opinion polls indicate the kind of deadender bullshit characterized by the above words is overwhelmingly a phenomenon of the political junkies who comment on political blogs. In the real world, most Democrats are satisfied with the process, and will vote for the eventual nominee -- realizing there's an enormous difference between a more progressive tax code, and end to the Iraq war, and healthcare reform (the policies either Democrat will try to enact) and whatever warmed over Bushery John McCain is serving up.
If the situation were reversed, don't you think Clinton supporters would be demanding Obama to drop out of the race?
No. They wouldn't have to, because Clinton would have an overwhelming lead in superdelegates, too. The only thing that Obama has is his pledged delegates, and everyone's pretty stupid to think that's enough. If he gets the nomination, it's because the superdelegates decided he was more electable--which means they've lost their mind, too.
What many HRC defenders don't seem to understand is that, while her voters might stay home in November if Obama were the nominee, Obama's supporters -- folks like me -- will be campaigning day and night for McCain if Hillary Clinton is the nominee.
Thus far, polls (which I don't necessarily trust, but are Obamabot's main currency) show exactly the opposite. Hillary's supporters won't stay home. They're far more likely to vote for McCain. Obama's supporters--yes, even blacks--will vote for Clinton.
This should make sense to anyone sane, as Clinton's voters are less loyal Dems than Obama's voters are. Thus, they like Clinton, but if they don't get their candidate, they'll go for McCain.
Thus far, polls show McCain with a commanding lead over Obama in Florida and (seriously) New Jersey. That may change, but it's an incredibly stupid thing to count on.
It's a very close race, but someone has to lose, and the simplest way for the party to pick a winner is by delegate count.
Um, it's not the "simplest" way, it's the only way. The candidate with a majority takes the nomination. As Hillary regains the momentum, closes in on Obama's pledged delegate tally, and as automatic delegates then begin to flock to her banner, she'll secure a majority by the time we get to Denver.
Murrrrphy: You strike me as some sort of puffed-up, blowhard, jackass. Go fuck yourself.
Reading the "Clinton should march on" comments is just getting surreal these last few days. If she wins one state by transforming a 20-point lead into a 5-point lead, that will constitute a powerful surge of positive momentum!
Also, is an Obama supporter pretending to be Fred? His serious posts sound like Jayhawk's parodies.
1. Caucuses - undemocratic sham elections.
They favor motivated voters, not casual. If Clinton thought they were so awful, her position of awesome leadership could have been spent reforming the primary system.
2. MI and FL not being seated? Unconstitutional much?
D primaries in MI and FL are in the constitution? Whoa. (And not according to the courts.)
3. Counting states where Obama spent much more time and money - um, unfair??
E-l-e-c-t-i-o-n. And tell it to Huckabee.
4. Counting states where Obama was better organized. Again, how is this fair?
See 3. We want to elect someone who can't get organized? Because she's so capable she already knows it all, except how to win an election?
5. Counting states that we can't win in the general - these #'s mean nothing.
Yeah, what matters is carrying the same states Al Gore carried. Or the same states John Kerry carried. Obama shall never take Massachusetts! We'll all write-in Ron Paul!!!
Murrrrphy: You strike me as some sort of puffed-up, blowhard, jackass. Go fuck yourself.
Ahh, yes, the usual eloquence and civility from Obama supporters I've grown to cherish.
"The only thing that Obama has is his pledged delegates, and everyone's pretty stupid to think that's enough." --Cal
Reason number 132 that continuing the race, and this kind of argument, past Wednesday is a bad idea. Everywhere the Clinton supporters are arguing that the delegates you get by actually winning elections are unimportant. Perhaps we shouldn't even bother holding any more elections, as their results will be meaningless to the superdelegate battle....Actually I'm pretty sure the supers for whom election results are meaningless already came out for Clinton.
People are voting for Barack Obama in droves. He provides a message of hope and dreams for the future. Much like real life, hopes and dreams mean f*ck all when we are faced with reality. Obamas lovely speeches are going to mean jack when he is elected and cant pass a single thing through congress. The US needs a major overhaul of its entire governing structure. The system is broken and until you actually realize that and demand that change from every level of government (as opposed to the current election which seems more than anything to be some kind of atonement for electing perhaps the dumbest president in American history, twice) all the pretty speeches you can give to starry eyed college kids wont mean a damn thing. I hope Obama loses, hard and in the most politically unjust way humanly possible, if only to show americans how stupid the government and election process really is. Maybe then you will all get over the tripe fed by the media and do what needs to be done other than fawning over a stuffed suit.
"... a light will shine through that window, a beam of light will come down upon you, you will experience an epiphany ... and you will suddenly realize that you must go to the polls and vote for Obama" - Barack Obama Lebanon, New Hampshire.
January 7, 2008.
Good luck with that
Everywhere the Clinton supporters are arguing that the delegates you get by actually winning elections are unimportant.
Absolutely nobody is arguing that pledged delegates are "unimportant." What people have been arguing is that, because neither candidates looks likely to win the necessary majority solely through winning pledged delegates, the eventual nominee will almost surely have to rely on automatic delegates for a portion of her victory -- probably somewhere north of 20%. Hillary Clinton has just as much right as Barrack Obama to persuade automatic delegates to her banner. Obviously, a shift in momentum flowing from a Clinton victory in tomorrow's contests (to say nothing of Pennsylvannia) would be something Hillary would seize upon in making her pitch to automatic delegates.
I know it sucks when you realize that something you want very very badly is not a sure thing. That's life. But whichever candidate ultimately triumphs is likely to only be stronger against McCain as a result of this hard fought process.
Question: If neither candidate can get enough pledged delegates to win, and they are within 100 or so doesn't this mean that the automatic delegates/party faithful will be the ones who decide the nominee? This means you could ignore the pledged delegates, go on who gets the most ADs/Party Faithful and get the same results, right? Ergo, pledged delegates don't matter. Only perception in the eyes of the Party Faithful.
Everywhere the Clinton supporters are arguing that the delegates you get by actually winning elections are unimportant.
Not unimportant. Just not enough, particularly in the face of weaker support in critical demographics. And, btw, I'm not a Clinton supporter. Haven't decided whether or not I'll vote for her. I'm definitely not a fan of Obama.
This means you could ignore the pledged delegates, go on who gets the most ADs/Party Faithful and get the same results, right? Ergo, pledged delegates don't matter.
I can't often tell whether you're sarcastic or not, but yes. Fundamentally, this is exactly what the superdelegate role was intended for, in the event it was needed.
But whichever candidate ultimately triumphs is likely to only be stronger against McCain as a result of this hard fought process.
False.
Y'know, three months ago I looked at our impressive slate of candidates and thought smugly to myself, "Yup, there go Democrats snatching victory from the jaws of defeat."
Two months ago I looked at the remaining candidates, the strongest of the crop, and thought ironically, "Yup, there go Democrats snatching victory from the jaws of defeat."
Fast forward to today, and it's not really a joke anymore. We're going up against a 71-year-old white man who can spend $5 million between now and August, and we're going to lose.
If I hadn't been a Democrat my whole life, I wouldn't have believed that it was possible. But it's possible, and it's happening every second.
The misanthropic pissiness of pseudo-intellectual fuckwits like Colin is what will make Obama's eventual victory oh so sweet.
I don't like HRC, but, she's right on this one. Who's the stronger team? The one with the better overall winning record or the one with the end of season winning streak? Which would the NCAA invite to March Madness?
This is silly. Both Ohio and Texas have significant demographic advantages for Hillary, like Unions and 30% Latino voters. If Obama comes close it means he has undercut her support among her core groups, her base.
That's funny Colin, I'm kind of hoping HRC wins the nomination just so that I can vote for her in the general election, only to see the candidate I dutifully if grudgingly voted for go down in flames to St. John the Apostate. Then I can say, "you dumb asses, I told you Hillary had no chance in hell to win the general election, and now our majorities in Congress are even smaller thanks to Billary's reverse coattails effect" and you dumbasses can go slink back under the kool-aid drinking rocks you crawled out from.
But hey, with allies like Howie Kurtz, Robert Novak and Charlotte Allen for company, it's no wonder Clinton is full of fight.
OBAMA AS INDEPENDENT?
Just a check-in from a London UK journalist...
It seems to me that if Obama has the most pledged delegates and the automatic/super delegates go against him, the rest of the world will just assume that the US is, as they thought but were beginning to doubt, hopelessly racist and will see it as another Florida 2000 - a stolen election.
The groundswell in the US in any case shd that happen for Obama to stand as an Independent would be massive - and with a million donors and his own infrastructure, and the "creative class" of web-designers, musicians, all backing him for free propaganda as well, he could well win it. The temptation to go for it would be immense, no?
Ahh, yes, the usual eloquence and civility from Obama supporters I've grown to cherish.
Who said I was an Obama supporter? You just strike me as an obvious fuckwit.
Suze had it exactly right in her comment above.
Hillary is not going to have much choice, even if she does win the popular vote in both states (which is, of course, far from certain). Richardson said clearly on Sunday that in his view whoever has a clear delegate lead after Tuesday is the nominee. There are a lot of other very influential party leaders -- Gore, Pelosi, Edwards, Biden -- who are also likely to step up now. Some Clinton super-d's will shift to Obama for the sake of party unity. A large move of super-delegates to Obama will mean that Obama becomes the clear winner, not just the clear leader. Hillary will become the Dems' Hucabee if she stays in, with no mathematical chance of winning.
The unexpected outcome of all this will be the vindication of the super delegate system. A clear winner has emerged, with a narrow but unsurmountable lead. The super-d intervention will obviate a destructive battle over Florida and Michigan (they can be seated, once it is certain that they won't affect the outcome) and prevent weeks or months of attacks of Dems on Dems while McCain watches gleefully and bitter feelings on Obama and Clinton sides get steadily stronger.
Of course if Hillary romps in both Ohio and Texas, and does pick up 30 or more net delegates, she should and will continue to campaign.
Lost in translation: really that is a totally Obamacentric and silly way of looking at things.
Because richardson says something it will be true for the party? That is ridiculas.
Hillary can't become the Huckabee of the party because she has over 1000 delegates. Tomorrow she could have 1300 or so. Huckabee is wickedly underfinanced and that is not ttrue of Hillary. Huckaby is someone who has won a critical and specific band of the party but has only a 4th of McCain's delegates.
And even he will have considerable power at the convention. Hillary has a broad spectrum of the dem electorate and if she goes contentiously to the convention can really win. Mc Cain can win without Huckabee's delegates but right now Obama can't. And Obama has pressed the argument that superdelegates should not decide this thing so is he now going to change that position?
The big question is what can Obama offer hillary to make her willing to suspend her campaign?
I can't see that he has any way to sweet talk her out of a very powerful position that very well may grow more advantageous every day.
We get it guys, you hate Hillary Clinton. Please stop embarrassing yourselves.
No hatred toward Hillary.
None whatever. I like ol' Big Dog too.
Hillary is a fine candidate and a groundbreaker who had the misfortune to come along the same year as Obama, another groundbreaker who is, simply put, a (marginally) even better candidate.
John Edwards, good man too. Bill Richardson. The other guys. This has been a STRONG and deep Democratic field, but I believe we have a winner, or we will after Tuesday, March 4.
I hope the Democratic Party doesn't let this boil over into a destructive, divisive struggle.
Maybe I'm naive, but I'd like to see both of them on the ticket.
And if Hillary had won, I would have been happy with Obama in the VP spot.
But this is Obama's year, and that's that.
So -- PLEASE -- let's move on.
Peter entirely eloquent and correct post. If only we had more Brits over here. The problem: Americans are unfortunately exactly what you fear they are. Too dumb to know they have a good thing.
Clinton supporters somehow believe:
1)Small states don't count
2)Red states don't count
3)Big states Barack Obama manages to win (IL, MO) don't matter
4)Swing states Obama wins (Missouri, Virginia, Maryland, Minnesota, Delaware, etc.) don't matter. Swing states Hillary wins (which somehow New Jersey magically manages to appear here. Since when has NJ ever went Red?) definitely do matter.
5) States where Obama manages to spend more money don't count.
6) States in the South don't count. (Heck they always go Republican, right? What's that you say? Oh yeah they do have a lot of black votes. Guess he could mobilize those in a general. Oh well, they don't matter.)
7) States outside the continental U.S. don't count. (He's from Hawaii and Alaska, whatever. What? She might win Puerto Rico? Ok, we'll count that.)
8) Most importantly of all actual votes don't count. Heck that's what we have superdelegates for. They'll all magically defect to the Clinton side somehow. Just you wait and see.
Sorry if my post wasn't as eloquent or succinct as yours. Those of us who are forced to be living on the same continent as this "Alice in Wonderland" logic are a little confused. You'll have to excuse us.
After Hillary posts huge wins by maybe 1 or 2% (or less) in Texas and Ohio, her firewall states; Pennsylvania will be her Nomex suit state. That means: "Hillary, your lucky to have that suit on to save your butt from burning in public. Get out now before you don't have even a shred of uncharred decency left!" I don't know is more sad, Hillary's missteps and fall from campaign grace or her selfish intent on driving a chasm wedge into the Party that I had to leave a while ago.
Cousins, We forgive your transgressions. Just accept We have the better system and ask my descendant Queen Elizabeth to take you back under her wing. Then no nonsense about primaries, caucuses, and the like. From where We sit it's just all silliness and does not bring in any better governing system. We doubt that BO will win. What citizens say in public is very often not what they will do in private. With several thousand years of recorded history We understand these minor blips. God bless you all.
Cousins, We forgive your transgressions. Just accept We have the better system and ask my descendant Queen Elizabeth to take you back under her wing. Then no nonsense about primaries, caucuses, and the like. From where We sit it's just all silliness and does not bring in any better governing system. We doubt that BO will win. What citizens say in public is very often not what they will do in private. With several thousand years of recorded history We understand these minor blips. God bless you all.
I only see one reason why Hillary would get out if she wins Ohio and Texas, and it's not the most likely senario. If she didn't get out after losing eleven contest in a row, why would she get out after winning the two big prizes today. She still has a realistic chance of winning the nomimnation.
I understand she would need to win huge percentages to win the nomination, but that's ussually how these things wind up working out. If she wins Texas and Ohio, she has momentum, and Obama's momentum is greatly reduced, reversed even. Because if Obama can't win Ohio and Texas with every news outlet fawning all over him and spending hour after hour talking about, why, oh why, won't Hillary get out of the way of the new democratic messiah, how is he going to win Penn.
(I know his press has turned negative in the last 24/48 hrs, but the statements true of the last 14 mos.)
I bet what happens if Hillary wins Ohio and Texas is that there will be a big push to revote Florida and Michigan.(The Obama campaign will want to oppose this, but they can't for PR reasons. It's one thing to say we won't count your votes if you vote out of order, it's entirely different to say were not interested in your votes regardless of what you do to comply with our rules.) If that happens, and Hillary keeps the momentum,(which is a big if, even April 22 is forever away) Hillary will take a significant popular vote lead, and either take the lead in pledged delagates, or make Obama's pledged delegate lead insignificant. I say insignificant meaning less than 25 pd's.
In that circumstance, I'd rather be Hillary than Obama. I would not want to be the candidate arguing to a convention full of Democrats that the popular vote doesn't matter, it's about the delegates. That would not have been a persausive argument prior to 2000, and it certainly will not go over well now. Democrats don't think that way.
Of coarse, this is also the argument for why Hillary should get out. If this senario plays out, we (democrats)are likely screwed, and we may already be. I couldn't tell you how many Hillary supporters tell me they won't support Obama if he wins, and vice versa.
This is a really immature response. Participating in democracy means accepting the fact that sometimes you will lose. And participating in party politics requires a certain amount of party loyalty. I say a certain amount because I'm originally from Louisianna, and David Duke use to be a Democrat. But neither Hillary or Obama are outside the party's mainstream, and neither Hillary nor Obama can win without the others supporters.
Prediction: We're screwed. Either African Americans or white women are going to feel that their first realistic chance of winnning the presidency was hijacked by the other. Neither can win without the enthusiastic support of the other. Maybe a unity ticket can save the day, but I don't see that happening. I don't think they like each other, and that will show.
Who said I was an Obama supporter?
You did. You've identified yourself as such by your several comments explicitly supporting Senator Obama's campaign for the nomination.
You just strike me as an obvious fuckwit.
And you strike me as an ignorant knuckle dragger whose barren vocabulary and dim intellect force you to rely on invective and cuss words.
THIS IS EXCELLENT NEWS!! FOR HILLARY!!!
Richard, another beloved Brit, wrote:
"From where We sit it's just all silliness and does not bring in any better governing system. We doubt that BO will win. What citizens say in public is very often not what they will do in private. With several thousand years of recorded history We understand these minor blips."
The sad thing is we ALMOST were ready to finally prove you wrong. Then they brought in this stupid super delegate thing. Florida 2000 was no shining example of democracy. But sad to say it appears you might somehow end up being right after all.
America still remains the best country on God's green earth and I'm proud to be a part of it everyday. But we really should consider some fine-tuning to make sure our democratic elections really are democratic. Surely we can all agree we could at least get rid of the super delegates in the primaries after this election season?
After all they were only instituted after 1980 to try and make sure no more small state governors like Jimmy Carter won again. This was, of course, inherently undemocratic and failed time and again.
I can't believe people want to blame politicans for everything. I've just finished reading these comments and I'll summarise it for you.
You're stupid and this is what I think.
No you're stupid and this is why I'm right.
I'd call this democracy or freedom of speech except for the pure hatred and contempt a lot of you show for people who don't think like you.
The rude and insulting comments are not signs of a healthy society where adults can debate albeit passionatly about conflicting issues.
Here's a lateral thought for you: Perhaps Bush nor Hillary are the root of all your problems?????? If this is how people within the same political party treat each other... well what hope do people of other countries / religions have?
| 
Well, to be fair, not just Chicago, but also among the 298 million Americans who are proud members of the reality-based community and who can see that Hillary has no realistic chance.
Posted by Jeff Larson | March 3, 2008 12:28 PM