There's a silver living in all of this: expectations. It would seem that the combination of Sen. Obama's fundraiser comments and his debate performance would convince the punditariot that Hillary Clinton ought to win Pennsylvania by a larger margin than before. So the burden of effort is transferred off of Obama and onto Clinton. If she doesn't win by whatever margin is deemed sufficient -- seven points? ten points? -- then what?
« The Obamaverse v. George Stephanopoulos | Main | Clinton And Obama Contrast Mail In Pennsylvania » Silver Lining Of Expectations17 Apr 2008 01:12 pm Comments (63)
Most people don't read the pundits and don't care about the margins: a win is a win and--more to the point--a loss is a loss. If (or should I say when) Obama loses Pennsylvania next week, by whatever margin, it will be the third really bad news story in as many weeks. What do you know: the second inevitable candidate might not be! 
Most people don't read the pundits and don't care about the margins: a win is a win and--more to the point--a loss is a loss. If (or should I say when) Obama loses Pennsylvania next week, by whatever margin, it will be the third really bad news story in as many weeks. What do you know: the second inevitable candidate might not be!
Perhaps, but then again, just a month ago Hillary Clinton was leading in PA polls by a margin of 25-30%. The fact that the expectations burden was ever on Obama in the first place is kinda whacky.
"If she doesn't win by whatever margin is deemed sufficient -- seven points? ten points? -- then what?" What we'll do is wait until after the primary and then say the margin wasn't enough. Then we don't have to worry about Hillary winning by more than whatever margin we pulled out of our arse. ambiner: *Does it bother you that an ocean of blood has been spilled by the "liberal medias" most favored candidate? The moron the "liberal media" decided would be president in 2000 and 2004. Will it bother you at all when mccain [The guy that will make cheney look like Ghandi] spills even more oceans of blood? *I’m not blaming ambinder for bush and I won’t blame ambinder when mccain is installed. I am saying ambinder is part of the problem.
Obama's big mistake in the TX/OH primaries was not managing expectations properly. Both of those states had Clinton favored by wide margins and both had the demographic mix that favored her. On top of that, she really needed to win big in those states to even begin to close the delegate gap. Had Obama gotten that message out, 3/4 would have been considered a loss for Clinton (which it was) instead of a loss for Obama (which it really wasn't) and maybe this thing would be over already.
Outside of unreliable pollsters like Zogby, no poll has shown him within five. I think if it the win is below ten, then it's clear that none of the bad news during the last week did much damage.
Well, given that Hillary has already been mathematically eliminated from winning more pledged delegates, the results of PA shouldn't matter AT ALL, NO MATTER WHAT THE MARGIN. She's only going to win 3-5 more delegates than he does, and that is clearly not even close to enough to catch up. I thought Obama did fine in the debate. He got through the first hour of stupid ambush gotchas (even Jonah Goldberg of National Review said as much at The Corner) and very appropriately aimed a lot of his criticism at the MSM and their practice of politics as usual. The moderators and ABC News were the big losers. I think most viewers willing to give him any benefit of the doubt whatsoever (i.e. undecided Dem primary voters) saw exactly why Obama is criticizing the woeful state of politics and political journalism in America and talking about the need for change.
I agree that this raises the bar for Clinton. Right now in my mind anything in single digits is a win for Obama. 10-14 is a draw. 15+ is a win for Clinton.
Maggie is right. With the polls less than a month ago showing Clinton up 20+ points and the ABC pounding last night, closing the gap to single digits should be seen as a win for Obama. Clinton will have a good night - confetti, etc. Then in the next day or 2, people will start talking about delegate totals again.
Joe B, Gee, that's a remarkably condescending view of how people react to primary results? Sounds like you are some kind of elitist. Voters are sophisticated enough to understand the importance of expectations and margins of victory. Of course, those perceptions are shaped to some extent by the media narrative as well. If Clinton wins PA by between 10 and 15%, it will help her, though not enough to change the dynamic of the race. Maybe enough to keep her afloat another few weeks. If Clintno wins by a true landslide - over 15% - that could shake up the race, though even then the best that Hillary can hope for is a bitter, divisive knife fight at the convention that she might win (emerging so damaged that a landslide loss to McCain would be likely). If she wins PA by, say, less than 10% but more than 5%, her campaign will be weakened, though I certainly can see her fighting on until the supers pull the plug on her after the last primary. If she wins by less than 5%, the media narrative will (accurately) portray the result as a disaster for Hillary; even then, she will struggle on through early May, but she'll be out right after North Carolina and Indiana. You remaining Hillary supporters are simple math challenged. She needs a series of blow out wins - not one but several - to have any kind of chance at a victory. And the polling data suggests very strongly that that just isn't going to happen. I mean, the truth is some of your jabs at Obama's supporters really do hit home, but look at yourselves: you are more delusional about your candidate's chances than her own staff, which recognizes that she has (at best) a 10% chance of winning this thing. And that was when the polling gap in PA was double what it is now.
Not to be mentioned: The obama camp spent about $40 million in March and has run $300,000 A DAY in ads just in PA for weeks and this week just in PA they have been spending about $500,000 A DAY on ads. Add that to the obama bamboozle express bus tour and numerous campaign events and you’d think the 'inevitable one' could be doing better than losing.
Ha! A win is a win, baby - no matter the margin. Don't you remember what happened in Texas?
A win is a win, baby
The key number to look for on Tuesday night is not the winning percentage, but the winning margin of votes. And the magic number is 204,000. To see why, take a look at this:
7 points? 10 points? To be honest, I'd consider 10 points (the same margin as OH) to be somewhat of a victory for Obama. A 20 point, at minimum 15 point win seems like the only win that would really generate momentum for Clinton. 10 points would be pretty much in line with expectations, I think.
So why isn't Clinton spending that much money on ads? I'd think she ought to be doing everything she can to win at this point, being behind in the delegate numbers and all. The thing is, she can't because the campaign can't afford it. She just wasn't prepared for a long drawn-out fight. Obama was, and continues to get more donations than Clinton.
fahey: "Yes, a win is a win. The problem is the game is like golf. She wins PA and moves up 3 strokes, but she's behind by 26 and there are only 6 holes left to play." I was, of course, speaking to the spin that we will hear after she wins PA. She'll be the comeback kid no matter the margin. But even in golf you have to finish all 18, you don't win because you're ibn the lead. As to the golf analogy or getting into the weeds of delegates and superDs - been there, done that, but here goes again. Neither candidate is going to reach the required number of delegates prior to the convention. You don't win the Indy 500 because you're leading after 497 laps; you have to finish the race. Since neither candidate will 'finish the race,' it comes down to superDs, and they can support whomever they choose for whatever reason they see fit. They may still seat the delegates from MI and FL, they WILL seat the superDs from both states - increasing her superD margin. She may very well win the popular vote. And last night's performance will give superDs plenty to think about. Once again, for O supporters to assert that the race is already over displays stunning arrogance. Just like they are trying to tell ABC what questions are acceptable - that doesn't work in America, baby! Just as O is trying to tell me how I can discuss race. Arrogant snobs who claim to know what's best for me and who want to dictate acceptable political discourse. Good luck with that!
Way to go Mark! You can't admit your profession did anything wrong last night, and more important, can't admit anything in your review is wrong! In fact, now your great journalist insight has bestow upon us the worthy judgement what has always be plain, the onus has always been on Hillary to win PA! Mercy NO!, say something, anything as along as it covers your lousy self-serving "review" of last night's debate to deflect your complicity in it. I never thought I would say this about someone at the Atlantic.com, but you are part of the problem!
Ha! A win is a win, baby - no matter the margin. Don't you remember what happened in Texas? Yes, Obama won more TX pledged delegates than Hillary did. That's been the case more often than not. As a result, Hillary needs to win every remaining primary by 20-25 points. Any "win" below that makes the number go up on the remaining votes. She also needs 2/3 of the remaining superdelegates who haven't endorsed yet. Obama's added 7 superdelegates in the past week, while Hillary added just 3. For April, Obama added 14. Hillary added just 5, but lost two (one who was replaced as a superdelegate and one who switched to Obama) for a net of just 3. That's 11 more delegates she needs to just break even with her standing on April 1. Think she'll pick up 11 pledged delegates in PA?
Why does every one keep describing a 55%/45% lead in Pennsylvania as a Clinton victory? She needs 515 more delegates to get the nomination, and there are only 870 delegates left to win. That means she needs a 57%/43% split overall. In Pennsylvania, her strongest state, she needs 60%/40%--a 20 point lead--in the Keystone state, or it's over.
Check out the article “Barack’s “Underground” Friends” http://savagepolitics.com/?p=291
I was, of course, speaking to the spin that we will hear after she wins PA. She'll be the comeback kid no matter the margin. Dude, there is lots that wrong and/or wishful thinking in your post, but this sentence takes the cake. She was the comeback kid after Ohio and Texas (and you can bet that that narrative would have been much more muted if her win in OH was a narrow as her win in TX) because she had just lost, what was it, 20 primaries in a row? (Yeah, yeah, I exaggerate, but you get the point). This time that narrative won't be there. No one can predict precisely what the media narrative will be after PA, but it won't be "comeback kid." Okay, I will venture one more prediction: if Obama can somehow narrow the gap so that PA is as close as TX, Clinton may not even last until NC & IN. And I will say one more thing about your delegate math. Sometimes it seems like Hillary supporters think that the undecided supers are this unitary mass that will come (almost) unanimously for one candidate or the other. But they are a group of individuals who will each make their own decision (albeit with a lot of communication between them). If Obama stays ahead in the popular vote, and maintains a decent lead in delegates, they will probably go mostly for him, and it will be over in June. There is, as even Clinton supporters acknowledge, no chance of an equivalent scenario for her. The BEST she can hope for is a spit - her behind in delegates, but ahead in the popular vote. If that happens, most likely the supers split - and Hillary would need to win the vast majority to those delegates. Now, that isn't impossible, but it does seem unlikely. And that is the BEST case scenario for her.
LFC: Thanks for the polite reply. "Obama won more TX pledged delegates than Hillary did." That was precisely my point. Hill got the good press after winning the popular vote in Texas EVEN THOUGH Obama won more delegates. Thus, when Hill wins PA, NO MATTER THE MARGIN, she will be the perceived winner. (Heck, she'll be the winner.) You make my point. As to the delegate math, see my reply to fahey above. It doesn't matter if you're leading. You don't win Monopoly by having more money and property; you win by forcing everyone into bankruptcy. Neither candidate will have enough delegates prior to the convention - whether she picks up 3 or 11 in PA. There's no such thing as a pledged delegate. There's no standard (that moronic tripe about the 'will of the people' notwithstanding) for a superD vote. They can vote for whoever they want for whatever reason. Any more performances like last nite, any further revelations, a pronounced swing towards Hill in the last remaining primaries, any of these give the superDs ample reason to support Hill. (But I'm sure if you threaten to leave the party they will shudder in fear, just like they're shaking over at ABC for fear that the mighty Kos will unleash a 'growing sophisticated online activist coalition.') Good grief, let's let this play out. If Obama wants to finish her off then he needs to win Indiana - simple. He hasn't been able to stop her yet. He's like a boxer with a glass jaw and no knockout punch; not a good combination.
sbj,
sbj, Finally, there is a bit of magical thinking involved as well. You think that arguments convincing to committed Hillary supporters as to why the delegates should go overwhelmingly for Hillary will necessarily be convincing to the supers. But whatever the "truth" is about Obama's electabilty, there is a ton of evidence that the "Obama is unelectable" meme does not enjoy wide acceptance outside the Hillary camp. For example, look at the media reports - last night's debate was simply not perceived as the fiasco for Obama that the Hillary bots think it was. I mean, you think you would learn by now. Wright, "bitter," now the debate. Each time the Clinonites yap their mouths about how THIS time Obama is finished, the voters and the supers will finally see the light, etc., etc. And each time ... the polls show continued or increased leads for Obama (except for a temporary dip after Wright), and the supers, while mostly keeping their powder dry, so to speak, slowly drift towards Obama. When the best case pro Clinton narrative relies upon more than 70% of the uncommitted super delegates going for her ... well, you know you guys are reaching. Ironically enough, if Clinton had shown a bit of restraint in her clumsy attacks on Obama, and if she had bneen able to manage to avoid lying her ass off about Bosnia, the Wright/Bitter/Debate events might really have stared a shift in her direction, though it still almost certainly would have been too late. The problem for Hillary - she can't help hereself. And the ugly , over reaching, republican talking point attacks coming from her mouth offend not only Obama sup[porters, but undecideds and, apparently, the supers as well.
We will find out soon enough just how the voters react to the freak show that Marc Armbinder's friends at his old employer, ABC News, put on last night. I think it'll wind up helping Obama rather than hurting him. This aging, cynical baby boomer isn't anyone's cultist, Obama's or Clinton's. These are our politicians, not our children. If they don't perform, we go out and get new ones. So, I'm not worried about poor Barack Obama's hurt feelings, if they exist. What I do worry about is the self-destruction of American journalism. Last night's debate is probably at least the 100th that I've seen. There have been some pretty bad ones over the years, but it was the worst of the worst. Anyone with a shred of self-respect would distance himself from that utter disaster. But not Marc. He thinks it did his candidate, Hillary Clinton, a service. Like I say, we'll see about that.
"No one can predict precisely what the media narrative will be after PA, but it won't be "comeback kid." No one can predict except for the all-seeing omnipotent Larry with a big M. Dude, there's a lot I don't like about you, and I don't even know you. Dude, he's the presumptive nominee and according to Obama poll readers he has been steadily closing the gap in PA. When she wins PA it will, indeed, be presented as a comeback scenario. Like you, seemingly, "I've been to the future and it's a place not too far from here." "the undecided supers are this unitary mass" Dude, that sounds so gross! "they are a group of individuals who will each make their own decision (albeit with a lot of communication between them). If Obama stays ahead in the popular vote, and maintains a decent lead in delegates, they will probably go mostly for him, and it will be over in June." Dude, again you have this amazing ability to see into both the future and into the minds of the superDs. What type of acid did you drop to gain these superpowers? If, as you say, they will closely communicate, then is it not possible that they will coalesce around a single candidate for the good of the party? And, what if your supposition that Obama wins the pop vote proves to be wrong? Dude, as to wishful thinking - heck yes, this is wishful thinking. I hope she wins but I know her chances are slim. Folks like you seem to be arguing that she has no possible chance. That's not true. Dude, was this post of mine suufficiently patronizing to match your tone or shall I fling naughty insults your way once again?
shorter sbj: Larry, you are right, of course* but since you were patronizing to me I'm going to throw out several paragraphs of meaningless snark" *"Dude, as to wishful thinking - heck yes, this is wishful thinking. I hope she wins but I know her chances are slim." Yes, my point exactly. Oh, yes, then you go on to say "Folks like you seem to be arguing that she has no possible chance." Aside from the fact that I never said that (what part of "that isn't impossible, but it does seem unlikely" don't you understand?), that sort of misses the point. Unless you prefer McCain to Obama, it seems rather shortsighted to support someone who is trying to destroy Obama's electablity in pursuit of a "slim chance" at the nomination, especially since the only path to that nomination would probably destroy Hillary's own viability as a general election candidate. As for patronizing you, guilty as charged. No apologies, though.
"the undecided supers are this unitary mass" Let's not bring religion into it. Oh. I thought you said "Unitarian".
I'm sorry to say that it's going to get very ugly. Clinton is not going to back down, even if she wins PA by 0.5%. Increasingly, I see the following scenario occurring. Come June, should Obama still be ahead, especially if it's both popular vote and delegates, there will be a tidal wave of undecided supers declaring for Obama. At this time, HRC will be faced with a decision - concede or take down the party for the greater good of the Clintons. If we've learned anything this primary season, it's that the Clintons will always put themselves first. Sadly, this will only serve to wound to the Democratic Party and severely maim the Clintons' legacy, not to mention hand John McCain the Presidency. This is the price we will pay for media and Dems continually cowtowing to the Clintons, lest they lose access to Bill, and the consistent belief that Barack Obama simply cannot be the honorable candidate, which he is. Ever since he's declared, there's been a constant drumbeat - "We still don't know enough about him." As a result, there's been a transference of other's opinions to him. Democrats and - most especially - MSM should be ashamed.
And one more thing. As annoying as it may be for Clinton supporters when some Obama supporters characterize Hillary's chances as "none" rather than "slim," how much more annoying is it when Hillary supporters claim to believe that Hillary is likely to win? How many Hillary supporters even grudgingly admit that her chances are slim? (despite my post above, I do have to give sbj some credit for that admission). They don't, because they know how difficult it is to justify their candidates actions if she has only a "slim" chance at victory. They have to pretend that she has a good chance of winning, or admit that they prefer McCain to Obama.
judy, The danger, honestly, is that she does nudge ahead in the popular vote (unlikely but possible), and that that fact stops most of the supers from committing in June (they could still go for Obama even then, but might not). That (or a REAL Obama scandal). If that happens, it goes all the way to the convention. If it does, whoever wins the nomination will face an enormous uphill battle in the general, at beast.
Increasingly, I see the following scenario occurring. Come June, should Obama still be ahead, especially if it's both popular vote and delegates, there will be a tidal wave of undecided supers declaring for Obama. At this time, HRC will be faced with a decision - concede or take down the party for the greater good of the Clintons. I think this depends on what happens in PA, NC, and IN. If Obama does well, I think Clinton could say whatever she feels like saying and it won't matter. Her only realistic hope is that she wins by more than 10 points in PA. If that happens, then your scenario could come true. But if, say, she wins PA by 4 points, loses NC by 15, and loses IN by 6 points, she'll be irrelevant. Obviously, this is very much in flux, but this is looking an awful lot like her grand finale. Not that I'm going to bet the ranch or anything, but I think that debate is going to wind up adding several points to Obama's numbers. You never know, it could turn PA into a upset for him. If so, then it won't be just Hillary Clinton who loses. It will be the slimy hacks at ABC "News" and Marc Ambinder and all of the other Republican surrogates who think they can do a Swift Boat attack this year and have it work. I'm really looking forward to next Tuesday. This could actually change the direction of American politics, and not a moment too soon.
"Obama only needs a third of the remaining supers to reach the total. The Game is over, has been for a while.": I wonder why ABC bothered with the debate and I wonder why 10 million people bothered to watch it? (Man, you've got to be scared about that - 10 million voters saw Obama flailing wildly last nite.) It's not over until the big O 'cashes' those pledged superDs in - and we have seen many 'pledged' superDs switch allegiances - haven't we? And what better reason to switch than watching your candidate implode on national TV? "You think that arguments convincing to committed Hillary supporters as to why the delegates should go overwhelmingly for Hillary will necessarily be convincing to the supers." Dude, I'm fairly sure I didn't write that anywhere. Perhaps the magic here is your reading? I'm hoping that Clinton wins; I understand that her path is extremely difficult. "look at the media reports - last night's debate was simply not perceived as the fiasco for Obama that the Hillary bots think it was." We obviously are reading different media accounts. DKos does not count as a media report, dude. If Obama has weathered the Wright controversy then I wonder why it was a topic last nite? And yes, I am hoping that the voters and superDs will finally see the light. I can see it - not sure why they (or you) can't. But it's quite disingenuous to claim that he has weathered these storms when we haven't had a primary in 5 weeks to prove that assertion. Has he weathered the 'cling' remarks? Really? How so? Because Gallup and Zogby say so? Zogby?!! Let's see how PA actually votes and then you can come back here and explain that a 7 point loss shows how he weathered that controversy. "When the best case pro Clinton narrative relies upon more than 70% of the uncommitted super delegates going for her ... well, you know you guys are reaching." I AM reaching but I am hopeful. And your argument here is a canard. She doesn't need 70% of the unpledged superDs - theres no such thing as a pledged superD. Her pool to pick from includes all superDs; both the so-called pledged and unpledged. "her clumsy attacks on Obama" Not only are we reading different media reports, apparently we watched different debates! Are you sure you weren't watching Paula Abdul versus Simon? Your turn!
sbj, Sorry, no more turns. You already conceded my central argument. All that's left is (a) your justification for supporting someone who is kneecapping the probable (hmm, what's 100% minus "slim"?) Democratic nominee in pursuit of what even you admit is a "slim" chance at victory, and (b) a plausible scenario of how, after a bitter, divisive convention bound to turn off the supporters of the loser, and a consequent truncated general election campaign, Hillary can possible beat McCain.
Yo, Larry! I enjoy reading your comments - keep them coming. No apologies asked for, expected, or accepted. (None offered, either.) "Unless you prefer McCain to Obama, it seems rather shortsighted to support someone who is trying to destroy Obama's electablity in pursuit of a "slim chance" at the nomination, especially since the only path to that nomination would probably destroy Hillary's own viability as a general election candidate." I do not believe that Hillary's path destroys her chances of winning. Are you one of those who threatens to leave the party if the superDs ignore the 'will of the people?' Or do you think that African Americans are only as smart as those in Kansas? That is, do you believe that they will vote against their interests (McCain) or not at all? I don't believe that will happen, either. I thought you were a partisan, I thought you would vote for the candidate no matter who. If the Dems would quit threatening to leave the party then we could coalesce around either candidate. (But I believe Hill would have abetter chance at beating McCain.) I believe that Obama is possibly the one candidate here who could lose the nomination and then use his admittedly powerful rhetorical skills to bring the party together under Hillary. (Don't try picturing that.) This could in fact be a transcendent moment in Democratic politics. I believe that Obama would lose to McCain while I also believe that Hillary would beat McCain. I'm not buying the destroy the party line. I may be wrong - perhaps we soon shall see - but I think there is a sizeable group of independents out there who will vote for Hill versus McCain but sit out for O vs McLovin. That's why I'm rooting for her - I think she's the only candidate that can beat McCain - and I won't stop due to idle threats of 'destroying' the party or similar crap. I don't think this is crazy talk - I think my take is quite reasonable. Cue snarking and rude commentary in 5, 4, 3 ...
One would think that. But because of the counter-narrative of all this supposedly not affecting him in the polls, if it shows up Tuesday it will be seen as a huge blow in his ability to appeal cross-culturally (ie to whites.) It irks me that after March 5, Chuck Todd, to take an example, would say she needs a BIG win, but then after the worst month imaginable for Obama, he says this morning on his Frist Read that if Obama keeps it under 5, he will be seen as having escaped intact, implying that a Clinton victory greater than 5 will be a major selling point for her. How does the number go DOWN after such a month?!?!?
I agree, Larry, it would be fun if we could claim to have won a discussion merely by crying, "I win. I win! You lose." Please remove your fingers from your ears. Nice use of bold but I never conceded your 'central argument.' Your 'central' argument appears to have only recently been introduced ... I recall that we began this back and forth by writing about the comeback kid. Your first two replies to my posts had nought to do with Hillary being so compromised by winning (?) that she couldn't win, so let's not pretend you were making that point when we began this discussion. An interesting thought - that by winning Hillary will seal her eventual defeat - but I feel that winning tends to lead to more winning. I also have more respect (than you seemingly do) for the intelligence of Democratic voters than to think they would foolishly lose to McCain rather than vote for a perfectly qualified candidate who ran an aggressive campaign. But that's my opinion - maybe there are that many whiney, stupid, short-sighted sore losers out there. As I said, I don't think superDs giving her the nomination destroys her chances, and, unless I'm mistaken, I don't believe you can prove that will happen. I don't think you can truthfully say that I have conceded your argument or that you can prove - in any way - that you are correct. After all, you would have to be able to predict the future. Oh wait, you've already made that claim. I think I'm gonna go now ... and I'm taking my ball with me. "Screw you guys, I'm going home."
30 points. Otherwise she needs to win NC and IN and all the rest by even more. Sure, a win is a win. I won't be posting who "really" won or lost--that's only in question when the popular vote goes one way and the delegate count the other. She may well win Kentucky, just like Huckabee. But if she doesn't close that pledged delegate gap down to under 10, PA just doesn't help her that much.
Thanks, Debs. Here's what I wrote: "I may be wrong - perhaps we soon shall see - but I think there is a sizeable group of independents out there who will vote for Hill versus McCain but sit out for O vs McLovin." The parts about "I may be wrong" and "I think" were meant to be qualifiers. I'm not claiming any hiddern wells - I'm offering an opinion based on anecdotal observation. I thought this would be clear - that's why the qualifiers are in there. Call me Richard Nixon - I'm echoing his silent majority idea. (The Bradley effect might also be used to support my idea.) I also tend to not trust polls and I believe my position on that has been proven correct time and time again. (Zogby anyone?) Do you really believe that 30% of Hill supporters are going to vote for McCain? I'm a registered Libertarian. If Obama is the nominee I will vote for McCain. If Hill is the nominee I will sit on my hands at home. There's one data point for you ...
sbj, I wish I could share your confidence that HRC would beat McCain. In fact, after last night, I believe the odds are even worse. Here's why... The GOP will go after HRC like a firestorm. They've been gearing up for this since 2000. One thing we've learned over this primary season is that when HRC gets attacked, she gets seriously nasty. Whenever Obama's camp says "boo!," she goes ballistic (and Bill has a meltdown). Imagine when the GOP comes after her... She will not play nice, even though her opponent is a "friend" and former POW. HRC will turn on McCain with a vengeance. In recent days, HRC's negative campaign against Obama have only resulted in a spike up in her personal negatives. His poll numbers continue to inch upwards. Should she go negative on McCain, he may not win in a landslide, but the GOP will most certainly retain residency at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.
I'm a registered Libertarian. If Obama is the nominee I will vote for McCain. If Hill is the nominee I will sit on my hands at home. There's one data point for you ... I'm a libertarian-leaning independent. If Obama is the nominee I will vote for Obama. If Hill is the nominee I will sit on my hands at home. There, I've just counteracted your data point. =)
Halperin put the over/under at 10.5% before the up/down swings were taking place in the polls. http://thepage.time.com/halperins-take-what-hillary-clinton-has-to-do-to-really-win-pennsylvania/ That seems reasonable. I'd go with that or something near it.
I'm a registered Libertarian. If Obama is the nominee I will vote for McCain. If Hill is the nominee I will sit on my hands at home. There's one data point for you.
In a week, the Pennsylvania primary will be over. Mostly likely, Hillary will win it, but her net gain in delegates will be quite small. Soon after that, Obama will win the North Carolina primary. That will cancel out any delegate gain Clinton gets from Pennsylvania. And that's how it will continue until June, when the last primary is held. Win one, lose one. No change in the dynamic. Obama will end up with more delegates, more popular votes, and more states won. At that point, as Clinton supporter Barney Frank recently said, the trailing candidate should withdraw. Most likely, the superdelegates will begin declaring for Obama in early June. Can anyone dispute this scenario?
Joe, you're as dillusional as your candidate.
DaveWoooo and jsa: DaveW lets McCain beat Hill, I let McCain beat Obama, and jsa doesn't care that his party is about to lose. We seem to be electing McCain by default here. Not a particular problem for me, as I'm a Libertarian, conservative by nature. Not a problem for Republicans, certainly. And I would suppose this isn't a particular problem for DaveW as he is a Libertarian-leaning Independent. So we both come out reasonably okay - a conservative wins and the candidate we can't abide, loses. But jsa appears to be taking a very counter-productive course, preferring to let potential Democratic votes go rather than trying to get us to vote for O or Hill. That's none too smart, methinks. I know you'd like to blame this all on Hillary and her aggressive campaign, but that doesn't explain the large percentage of Hill supporters who claim that they will vote for McCain if she loses the nomination. I'm here trying to get folks to support Hillary. DaveW, I assume, for Obama. jsa would be much wiser to encourage support for his candidate rather than booting us Hill fans out because we are not yet convinced. You can blame the eventual Democratic loss on folks like jsa. Both DaveW and myself are at least doing no harm to the Democratic nominee. He's actively chasing potential votes away.
Actually... if you're playing match play rules in golf rather than stroke play, you DON'T play all 18 holes (unless both players are evenly matched). The round ends when one player is behind the other by more holes than remain to be played. Right now the only way Clinton can win is if Obama guts a gopher on the 18th green and gets thrown off the course by the groundskeepers.
BobR: I can offer a different fantasy: Hill wins PA by 7%, is closer than expected in NC, wins Indiana, wins real big in Puerto Rico, and comes closer than expected in the remaining primaries due to all of that momentum, Obama's various controversies, help from the media, and Obama's extremely poor performance in last night's debate (God forbid he agrees to another debate in NC!) She cuts his delegate lead to less than 100. By some methods used to count the popular vote she is close at this point. In addition, the FL and MI superDs are seated (the ones Dean booted even though the DNC charter prohibited him from doing so) and they overwhelmingly support Hillary because she has been their advocate. This further increases the lead she already has in superDs. Then the credentials committee, unwilling to lose FL even before the election, realizes it would be a PR disaster to not seat the FL and MI delegations so they are seated at 50% strength in approximately the same ratios as the elections (Obama gets all 40% of MI even though he doesn't deserve them). With the seating of FL and MI she now has the popular vote lead as well. This leaves Hill with the pop vote lead, a small advantage to Obama in delegate count of less than 50, and a substantial lead in pledged superDs to Hillary. This is when the negotiating begins. One side eventually gives in and urges their supporters to unite under the remaining candidate. That candidate receives unanimous delegate support and the Dems go on to glorious victory. If Hill gets close enough this is a tossup.
here's what matters-- obama has secured 6 new superdelegates in the last 3 days and clinton has lost one (the d.c. guy flipped). 2 from NC, and 1 each from DC, UT, OK, & IN. plus endorsements from the owner of the steelers, all the major newspapers in PA, and springsteen. 60% of america sees hillary as dishonest & untrustworthy. bottom line, no superdelegate is going to buck those trends. bill/hill can spin non-stop through next tuesday re the debate (which most viewers, btw, thought obama won, by more than a 2 to 1 margin) and none of it will effect anything.
sbj,
It is sad and ironic that the entire democratic population is behaving just like the Republicans when Bush was elected. Republicans elected Bush and the country found out who he was. A war mongor and more, never caring for the poor and helpless. Obama will be considered WEAK fighting terrorism abroad when the terrorists will cheer his friendlyism and unprovokableness. His cool will make America cry. His ties with radicals will make our country weep again in the next four years. He has offered absolutely no solutions. He is an intelligent fellow only in disguise. He has followed others in every one of his moves. He can not even make his own speeches so we know for sure. THE COUNTRY WILL WEEP AGAIN...
I agree with the last comment. No matter what Obama's negatives are, he is the only WINNER found in any debates. He will definitely beat McCain in November. But after that, his weaknesses, lack of patriotisms, ties to radicals and ties to Islamic nations, and his arrogance - all will pop up and we will be at a terrible LOSS. What is happening right now is that people have blinded themselves against anything Obama has done or not done. He could have killed someone and people are with him. I commend Obama's stars and I wish I had those..Geraldine Ferraro was absolutely right and our Superdelegate system is just as fraud as anything else that we are ABOUT TO ELECT a President who has only until recently refused to wear US Flag pin. He answers simply that that is not what people should be talking about in campaign but the ISSUES. But that is and Should be the FIRST ISSUE In the minds of the Voters. Win my mind Obama first as a TRUE Patriot then I will listen to your stand on ISSUES.
I suspect you all are incorrect and Obama will win Pennsylvania by a slim lead but he will win! You seriously underestimate the youth, college , undecided and african-american vote in Penn. So do the polls.
Smartguy, none of us know. It would be nice if you're right, but don't bet the farm.
MY FELLOW “BITTER”, STUPID, WORKING CLASS PEOPLE :-) If you think like Barack Obama, that WORKING CLASS PEOPLE are just a bunch of “BITTER”!, STUPID, PEASANTS, Cash COWS!, and CANNON FODDER. :-( You Might Be An Idiot! :-) If you think Barack Obama with little or no experience would be better than Hillary Clinton with 35 years experience. You Might Be An Idiot! :-) If you think that Obama with no experience can fix an economy on the verge of collapse better than Hillary Clinton. Whose ;-) husband (Bill Clinton) led the greatest economic expansion, and prosperity in American history. You Might Be An Idiot! :-) If you think that Obama with no experience fighting for universal health care can get it for you better than Hillary Clinton. Who anticipated this current health care crisis back in 1993, and fought a pitched battle against overwhelming odds to get universal health care for all the American people. You Might Be An Idiot! :-) If you think that Obama with no experience can manage, and get us out of two wars better than Hillary Clinton. Whose ;-) husband (Bill Clinton) went to war only when he was convinced that he absolutely had to. Then completed the mission in record time against a nuclear power. AND DID NOT LOSE THE LIFE OF A SINGLE AMERICAN SOLDIER. NOT ONE! You Might Be An Idiot! :-) If you think that Obama with no experience saving the environment is better than Hillary Clinton. Whose ;-) husband (Bill Clinton) left office with the greatest amount of environmental cleanup, and protections in American history. You Might Be An Idiot! :-) If you think that Obama with little or no education experience is better than Hillary Clinton. Whose ;-) husband (Bill Clinton) made higher education affordable for every American. And created higher job demand and starting salary’s than they had ever been before or since. You Might Be An Idiot! :-) If you think that Obama with no experience will be better than Hillary Clinton who spent 8 years at the right hand of President Bill Clinton. Who is already on record as one of the greatest Presidents in American history. You Might Be An Idiot! :-) If you think that you can change the way Washington works with pretty speeches from Obama, rather than with the experience, and political expertise of two master politicians ON YOUR SIDE like Hillary and Bill Clinton.. You Might Be An Idiot! :-) If you think all those Republicans voting for Obama in the Democratic primaries, and caucuses are doing so because they think he is a stronger Democratic candidate than Hillary Clinton. :-) Best regards jacksmith... Working Class :-) p.s. You Might Be An Idiot! :-) You see, back in 1993 Hillary Clinton had the audacity, and nerve to try and get quality, affordable universal health care for everyone to prevent the suffering and needless deaths of hundreds of thousands of you each year. :-) Approx. 100,000 of you die each year from medical accidents from a rush to profit by the insurance, and medical industry. Another 120,000 of you die each year from treatable illness that people in other developed countries don’t die from. And I could go on, and on...
DON'T BE DUPED !!! Large numbers of Republicans have been voting for Barack Obama in the DEMOCRATIC primaries, and caucuses from early on. Because they feel he would be a weaker opponent against John McCain. With Hillary Clinton you are almost 100% certain to get quality, affordable universal health care very soon. But first, all of you have to make certain that Hillary Clinton takes the democratic nomination and then the Whitehouse. NOW! is the time. THIS! is the moment you have all been working, and waiting for. You can do this America. “Carpe diem” (harvest the day). I think Hillary Clinton see’s a beautiful world of plenty for all. She’s a woman, and a mother. And it’s time America. Do this for your-selves, and your children’s future. You will have to work together on this and be aggressive, relentless, and creative. Americans face an even worse catastrophe ahead than the one you are living through now. You see, the medical and insurance industry mostly support the republicans with the money they ripped off from you. And they don’t want you to have quality, affordable universal health care. They want to be able to continue to rip you off, and kill you and your children by continuing to deny you life saving medical care that you have already paid for. So they can continue to make more immoral profits for them-selves. Hillary Clinton has actually won by much larger margins than the vote totals showed. And lost by much smaller vote margins than the vote totals showed. Her delegate count is actually much higher than it shows. And higher than Obama’s. She also leads in the electoral college numbers that you must win to become President in the November national election. HILLARY CLINTON IS ALREADY THE TRUE DEMOCRATIC NOMINEE! As much as 30% of Obama's primary, and caucus votes are Republicans trying to choose the weakest democratic candidate for McCain to run against. These Republicans have been gaming the caucuses where it is easier to vote cheat. This is why Obama has not been able to win the BIG! states primaries. Even with Republican vote cheating help. Hillary Clinton has been OUT MANNED! OUT GUNNED! and OUT SPENT! 4 and 5 to 1. Yet Obama has only been able to manage a very tenuous, and questionable tie with Hillary Clinton. If Obama is the democratic nominee for the national election in November he will be slaughtered. Because the Republican vote cheating help will suddenly evaporate. All of this vote fraud and republican manipulation has made Obama falsely look like a much stronger candidate than he really is. YOUNG PEOPLE. DON’T BE DUPED! Think about it. You have the most to lose. The democratic party needs to fix this outrage. Everyone needs to throw all your support to Hillary Clinton NOW! So you can end this outrage against YOU the voter, and against democracy. The democratic party, and the super-delegates have a decision to make. Are the democrats, and the democratic party going to choose the DEMOCRATIC party nominee to fight for the American people. Or are the republicans going to choose the DEMOCRATIC party nominee through vote fraud, and gaming the DEMOCRATIC party primaries, and caucuses. Fortunately the Clinton’s have been able to hold on against this fraudulent outrage with those repeated dramatic comebacks of Hillary Clinton’s. Only the Clinton’s are that resourceful, and strong. Hillary Clinton is your NOMINEE. They are the best I have ever seen. “This is not a game” (Hillary Clinton) Sincerely jacksmith... Working Class :-)
fahey: Thanks for the shout out. I think that Obama supporters will paint virtually any margin of victory by Clinton in PA as a victory for Obama. I recall that TX was painted in a similar fashion. "If it's close, she loses." Well, she basically lost, winning only the pop vote by a small margin. And Olbermann and his ilk crowed about her defeat ... And yet she still competes, raises money, is treated seriously, still referred to as the winner of TX. So fahey, you might believe that she loses (by winning by 7%), but I am confident that she will continue to campaign if she wins PA. If she continues to campaign, how can you claim that she has lost? Much can change in the coming weeks. Obama could wrap this up, Hill could keep scratching along. I'm happy to watch a spirited competition, even with a bit of mud. We can talk all we want about 'perceived' victories, but the only real victor in PA is the one who wins the primary. That's the only 'real' measure. We can talk about the implications of a slim Hill victory, but she is the only one who gets to determine whether she continues to campaign. It's not over until she says it's over, no matter what you and I write here.
SBJ, I'm befuddled by your claim to be a libertarian who supports Clinton. As far as policy positions go, she and Obama are both big-government liberals, of course, but in most ways that matter, she seems to be more pro-big government than he is. She's been more supportive of the Iraq invasion; she's got a fairly clear tradition of supporting executive authority; her health care plan has mandates, which are more invasive. Even on smaller issues (medical marijuana, for instance) Obama has what seems like the more libertarian-friendly position. So, what gives? As far as process goes...of course Clinton will decide when she gets out. However, it is possible for her to end up in a position where her campaign becomes so manifestly unsustainable that superdelegates, the media, and voters all leave in flocks. If she loses PA (which isn't going to happen), she's dead. If it's close in PA and she gets crushed in NC, that may be it too. Obama hasn't been able to put her away yet, but we'll see.
sbj, what you described is what's known in football as a Hail Mary pass. If absolutely everything breaks Clinton's way, she MAY have a chance of pulling off a miracle. Highly unlikely, though. Obama's nationwide lead vs. Clinton is in double digits. Almost every superdelegate who has announced a preference in the last two months has gone to Obama. Clinton's negatives have been rising as she attacks Obama. Unless something REALLY unusual happens - some very nasty skeleton pops out of his closet - the dynamics of this race aren't going to change. If I were a betting man, I'd say Obama will have an almost unassailable lead after the Pennsylvania, Indiana and North Carolina primaries, and it will only be a matter of Clinton accepting the inevitable.
jacksmith, whatever you're smoking must be real good.
Yawn. There are about 10 ballgames left in the season, and Barack Obama's magic number is 1. At this point, Hillary & Co. are Jim Carrey: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fcGj57cQIeg
|
Subscribe to this blog by Email Twitter || On Facebook || QIK Live Channel  Recent Posts
Monthly Archives
|
| 
Copyright © 2009 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
Most people don't read the pundits and don't care about the margins: a win is a win and--more to the point--a loss is a loss. If (or should I say when) Obama loses Pennsylvania next week, by whatever margin, it will be the third really bad news story in as many weeks. What do you know: the second inevitable candidate might not be!
Posted by Joe B | April 17, 2008 1:32 PM