Post-Election Thoughts

by: Chris Bowers

Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 04:06


Latest results before bed:

March 4th Primary and Caucus Results
State Reporting O % C % Delegates Obama Del Clinton Del
Ohio 100% 44% 54% 141 65 76
Rhode Island 99% 40% 58% 21 8 13
Texas Primary 99% 48% 51% 126 61 65
Texas Caucus 36% 52% 48% 67 0 0
Vermont 99% 59% 39% 15 9 6
Total NA NA NA 370 143 160

You can follow the Texas caucus here. Here are some thoughts on the results:

Obama still the favorite
Looks like Clinton will net about 10-15 delegates tonight, along with about 250,000 popular votes. Overall, Obama will now lead by about 600,000 votes, and 145-150 pledged delegates. Toss in superdelegates, and Obama's lead cut to about 100-110 delegates. Add in Florida, and Obama leads by about 300,000 votes, and about 65-70 delegates. Throw in a Michigan delegate with zero votes for Obama, and Clinton takes an infinitesimal lead in both counts.

This is why Obama is still the favorite. In order to even force a virtual tie, Clinton needs three contingencies to break her way. Obama, by contrast, will probably wipe out Clinton's March 4th delegate gains in Wyoming (March 8th) and Mississippi (March 11th), leaving the pledged delegate margin heading into Pennsylvania identical to the margin before yesterday's contests. However, overall March will still be a victory for Obama, as he continues to cut into Clinton's superdelegate lead. Rumors are that many more are on the way, too. Overall, despite her wins tonight, at the end of March, Clinton will probably be further behind in delegates than at the start of the month.

Gonna Get Even Nastier
I think the most telling rhetorical moment of the night was when, during Clinton's speech, her supporters started chanting "Yes, She Will," or something to that effect. Whatever it was, it was directly aimed not just as Barack Obama, but at Barack Obama supporters. I can't remember something like that ever happening before. Were they mainly cheering for Clinton, or antagonizing Obama supporters? Hard to tell. You could feel their disgust with Obama supporters, which certainly is a sign that Clinton supporters don't care how nasty her campaign might get against Obama. And, if what I see in the blogosphere is any indication, for many Obama supporters the feeling is more than mutual. If Obama decided to retaliate in kind, I doubt his supporters will mind. This could get really, really ugly.

Matchups Against McCain Will Suffer
Expect Clinton to start closing the general election performance gap on Obama, but not necessarily gain on McCain. I have long argued that whoever has the monentum in the primary campaign will always perform better in the general election. For the next several weeks, neither Clinton nor Obama will have momentum in the primary campaign, but McCain probably will. As our campaign gets nastier and remains somewhat inconclusive, there is a good chance McCain will gain on both Clinton and Obama.

Not About Winning States Anymore
From this point on, winning or losing states has virtually nothing to do with the campaign anymore. Winning Pennsylvania might have an impact on North Carolina and Indiana. Also, 213 delegates will be determined by the result of the remaining statewide votes. Otherwise, states are now a sideshow to the many other forms of delegates available:  district-level delegates, superdelegates, the credentials committee, Puerto Rico, and even Edwards delegates. The outcome of the popular vote is also important as it could play a huge role in how many superdelegates make up their minds, and in whether or not the nation as a whole views the nominee as legitimate.

Non-Dismissive Talking Points
What the Obama campaign should say about the extended campagin:

"Last night, Senator Clinton narrowly won the popular vote and the delegate count. However, overall we still have several hundred thousand more votes than Senator Clinton, and we still have more than 100 delegates than Senator Clinton. We are playing by the delegate rules everyone agreed upon before the voting began, and according to those rules, we are still the heavy favorite. We believe superdelegates should respect the popular vote, and that they should also work to avoid a brokered convention so we can start taking on John McCain. We will continue to fight for every vote and every delegate, and not pick and choose which ones matter and which ones don't."

What the Clinton campaign should say about superdelegates and such:

"Sure, superdelegates are not based on the popular vote, but neither are caucus delegates. Anyway, Senator Obama and I have virtually identical popular vote totals, and in a campaign this close, it is about who has the delegates. We will fight for delegates in primaries. We will fight for the credential committee to seat our delegates in Michigan and Florida. We will fight for superdelegates. We will fight for uncommitted delegates. We will not pick and choose and say which ones matter and which ones don't. And we believe that, in the end, we will have a majority at the convention."

Notice how none of these talking points required dismissing anyone as unimportant, dissing the rules, or ignoring the popular vote? That is what both campaigns need to aim for right now.

Pennsylvania Goes Mad With Power
Wow--Pennsylvania is going to matter. In fact, with a seven-week build-up to Pennsylvania, it might end up getting more attention that even Iowa or New Hampshire. And I live here. And I'm a precinct captain here. And I'm on the state committee here. Wow. I think it is time for all of this power to go to my head. If nothing else, I'll have a first-hand look at the climax of the most epic Democratic nomination contest in a century. Obama and Clinton both meet with the 69 Philadelphia ward leaders on Friday. Really, it is more important than a debate. My ward endorsement meeting is on March 20th. Expect a lot of on the ground coverage!

***

So, there it is: yet another big twist in this campaign, resulting in a shockingly close result for this late stage of a nomination campaign. I wish it had ended last night, but democracy is a funny thing. I'll have updated delegate counts and popular vote totals when I wake up.  

Chris Bowers :: Post-Election Thoughts

Tags: , , , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
SNL bounce (4.00 / 2)
SNL phones in their political satire for most of the Bush years and then sticks their neck out for Hillary Clinton.

VISA is Hungry! http://www.funnyordie.com/vide...

Please (0.00 / 0)
SNL was viewed by 7 million people.  No way.

[ Parent ]
My thoughts... (4.00 / 3)
I may start coming to the ward meetings to see what's up - as a second-semester senior, I finally have a little more time on my hands than I have in the past. :)

As for the race in general, I don't think that PA's results will affect the narrative that much. I feel that NC, being sandwiched between states where Obama ran up the score on Clinton (VA by 29%, SC by 28%) will be fertile ground for another delegate run-up in the late stage of the game. For convenience's sake, I'm going to assume that Clinton wins PA by somewhere between 5-10%. After that, I think Guam will be a split, and May 6th will be a split as well (Clinton will win IN on Rust Belt strength, despite Obama's neighboring-state advantage; Obama will clean up in NC). Clinton will win in a blowout in West Virginia (does anyone know if Rockefeller has any sort of clout?) on May 13th. May 20th will be another split (blowout for Clinton in KY, a large margin of victory for Obama in OR). Obama will rack up large margins in MT and SD (both primaries) on June 3rd, and I think Obama will win Puerto Rico on June 7th - the governor endorsed him, and that will be a pure machine-politicking win. I know he doesn't have strength amongst Latinos, but I think that will be a different case. Furthermore, Latinos in PR are a much different constituency, with different issues, than those in border states.

In short, I see Obama probably netting delegates from the NC/IN split and victories in WY, MS, MT, and SD. He'll be very close a pledged delegate lead of 200 by the time this whole thing's over, and it could be much bigger if those rumors of PR's delegates going to the winner are true. In that light, it becomes exceedingly difficult to see Clinton winning the nomination other than twisting the arms of superdelegates to the breaking point...and given how the results will be in the upcoming contests, I just don't see it happening.

One way or another, Barack Obama will be the nominee. It's just a matter of time. All we can hope is that Clinton doesn't bloody him up to the point where our general election chances become exceedingly low after Denver.


Obama leads in Indiana (0.00 / 0)
by 15 percent. So add a few delegates to his total.

I agree with what you said though. Pennsylvania will get a lot of attention, because it's the only large state left that leans to Clinton but by a small enough margin to be interesting. But really, the outcome doesn't matter. Obama will have a large pledged delegate lead unless he gets hit by a major scandal.

I think, though, that the fact that Hillary seems pretty happy with a result that left her completely out of the running for the pledged delegate lead means she doesn't care about that. She's going to be making negative attacks until August. She needs a miracle now anyway, why quit later? A miracle is always possible.


[ Parent ]
Second point is what has me worried... (0.00 / 0)
Kos seems to think that this going on is a good thing, as it removes media focus from John McCain.

I think that the longer this goes on, the nastier it gets between the candidates and their supporters, thus reducing the percentage of "converts" once it's finally over.

Whoever wins, I want a united front behind them... the nastier this gets, the less likely that becomes.

And that's why tonight's biggest winner, in more ways than one, was John McCain.


My Texas Caucus delegates calculator (0.00 / 0)
Ok, so the latest caucus results are available from this site.

The problem? How do you add them all up and translate the result to national delegates? Well I've put together a quick and dirty spreadsheet.

Do a copy & paste off the TX website and make sure you copy everything from the "1" which indicates Senate District in the table to the last line which is (Uncommitted 2 0%).

You should be able to paste this over my first column in the spreadsheet and get updated results.

Note: cross-posted to Daily Kos


Obama Wins TX Delegates (0.00 / 0)
The Texas Secretary of State says Clinton gains 4 delegates from the primary and Chris says 2 delegates. Either way, it looks like the caucus results will go for Obama by a larger margin. So it looks like Obama will win the total delegate count from Texas?

[ Parent ]
Thanks for the idea. (0.00 / 0)
It didn't work "out of the box" in OpenOffice, but it inspired me to make one of my own.

Right now with 34% of precincts reporting (2789 of 8224) I have the County Convention Delegates at:
48,233 for Obama
39,747 for Clinton
Giving a Obama 37 National Delegates to Clinton's 30 if they're all treated as "at large" (judging by the rules found at http://txdemocrats.org this isn't precisely true, but likely very close to accurate)

I went on to do a similar sheet for Ohio and got:
66 for Obama
75 for Clinton
The results can be found at:
http://vote.sos.state.oh.us/pl...
(when I tried using the Customize thing it broke, so I advise avoiding that)
Several Districts are very close:
(D# %leader Obama-Clinton)
D01 at 2-2 could go 3-1 (62.3% needs 62.5)
D05 at 2-2 could go 1-3 (60.3% needs 62.5)
D17 at 3-4 could go 2-5 (64.24% needs 64.29%)
D18 at 2-3 could go 1-4 (68.4% needs 70%)

My guess is that Clinton nets 11 from Ohio while Obama gets 5 from the Texas Caucus (totally random guess that it'll end up 36-31).  That would give Clinton +12 for the night.

Now the question is why on earth did I stay up so late figuring that out? ;).


[ Parent ]
Also SD 26 (0.00 / 0)
Clinton at 61.5% so 2-2, but early voting only gave her 1 vote to Obama's 18,000. Good chance something changes there and splits 3-1.

[ Parent ]
The functions must be different in OpenOffice N/T (0.00 / 0)


[ Parent ]
Pennsylvania can't be decisive... (4.00 / 2)
The problem is that I don't see how Pennsylvania can be the climax.  They will again split the delegate count there, regardless of who wins the popular vote.  She no doubt won't be able to use it to really close the delegate gap.  

And although I think Clinton could have been forced out of the election last night with losses, I don't see how a narrow loss in Pennsylvania would make her drop out.

If she stays in now, and she will, I don't see the scenario under which she stops until at least June --- unless superdelegates (and party leaders) endorse Obama en masse.

What options are left to end this early?  I just don't see many.

One Million Strong --- Join up!


I'm okay with it (4.00 / 1)
I started out the year favoring Edwards and leaning to Hillary if I couldn't have him.  Before super-Tuesday I switched to Obama and voted for him - again, a narrowly-decided choice.  Nonetheless, I hoped against hope that the nomination might be decided last night in Obama's favor just to get it over with.

But I'm okay with this result.

To those who were repulsed by Hillary's echo of GOP talking points (talking to you, Rachel Maddow), they need to remember who initially started the strategy of "poaching" Republican votes.  Sauce for the goose, sauce for the gander.  I don't like it from either candidate but please, fellow Obama supporters, get over the moralism of it.

If Obama had to come a cropper, I'm glad it was over the issue of trade.  His weak position has been well-known to me over the years and was one of my reservations stopping me from backing him.  I wrote him a letter a couple of years ago on the H1B issue - this totally legal immigration issue is nothing but a corporate tool to slash wages in my profession - and got the standard corporate-slant reply, disappointing me.

I know Hillary's no better on this.  Not for nothing did an offshoring firm contributor toast her as the "Senator from Punjab", which Obama could have flayed her with and chose not to.

So it seems the voters want the Democrats to come clean on NAFTA and all the trade deals.  What WILL they do about it?  Lip service and vague bullshit about retraining aren't cutting it anymore. (Retraining - screw that - my problem is I'm too skilled and have some grey hair).  The Democrats need to have an actual trade and industrial policy.  They need finally to decide what IS the balance to be between corporate donors and their base on this issue.  They cannot sit still and watch every desirable job leave the country and be okay with that.

We need no more reruns of the 2004 debate in which John Kerry retreated from his "Benedict Arnold corporations" line as soon as he was pressed on it by a debate moderator, exposing the fact that there was nothing backing it up.

Obama and his advisor Goolsbee have been too clever by half.  He is going to need to answer in specifics what his NAFTA rhetoric means - otherwise he is toast.

And as a former Edwards supporter, I guess I have to say that that's a good thing - this issue will not die.

sTiVo's rule: Just because YOU "wouldn't put it past 'em" doesn't prove that THEY did it.


"Pennsylvania Goes Mad With Power " (0.00 / 0)
I wouldn't go that far, but some of those Pennsylvanians sure became a bit cocky recently...
:D

Let it be said by our children's children that when we were tested, we refused to let this journey end, that we did not turn back, nor did we falter

It's not about Obama supporters (0.00 / 0)
Or Clinton supporters. The voters saw some real weaknesses in Obama himself, particularly on national security.  He can no longer point to inevitability and his army of acolytes as sufficient reasons to nominate him.  He has to explain in detail why he is more qualified to be president than Clinton or McCain.  

Peculiar (0.00 / 0)
Since he's the one with the best record on national security - shouldn't have gone to Iraq, should leave it, should go to Afghanistan, and cosponsored a law to keep nuclear weapons and anti-air missles away from terrorists and other rogue agents.

[ Parent ]
If We Get Michigan and Florida Revotes (0.00 / 0)
in June, as rumored, and Hillary wins both, the pledged delegate and popular votes will essentially be a tie.  Assuming she has won Pennsylvania as well, there will be a compelling argument against nominating Obama.

If there is a tie (0.00 / 0)
why would the nomination go to Clinton? Assuming that her performance against McCain stays the same in the polls I mean.  

[ Parent ]
This would be good (0.00 / 0)
The situation is much too dire for the luxury of not counting MI and FL. Maybe a repition of the primaries there will get a decisive result. Personally, I don't bet on this, I think it's much more likely that the race will go on all the way to the convention. Not necessarily bad, if this results in the winner having full democratic legitimacy, but strategically a problem, becuase of all the lost time for fighting McCain, of course.  

Let it be said by our children's children that when we were tested, we refused to let this journey end, that we did not turn back, nor did we falter

[ Parent ]
revotes dont favor Hillary (4.00 / 1)
she will only lose margin in FL and MI. your analysis is backward. Right now there are 0 votes for Obama in MI. In a reelection he will have votes in MI. Likewise if Florida were revoted Obama would campaign there and he would narrow the margin of victory. Hillary has only broken the 15% margin in 4 contests, her home state, NY, Mass and RI, Hillary.  

Michael Bloomberg, prince of corporate welfare

[ Parent ]
Sure, but (0.00 / 0)
...right now, the assumption is she will get zero delegates out of Fla. and Mich. So any net delegates she would get there after a revote would help her.

[ Parent ]
Um No... (0.00 / 0)
Even if the results are the same as before with Obama getting all the uncommitted Delegates in Michigan and She getting all the Edwards ones in Florida, he won't have caught him.

But wishful thinking on your part.


[ Parent ]
Only if she wins them (0.00 / 0)
by fairly wide margins.

[ Parent ]
Kitchen sink strategy to sway state and local conventions (4.00 / 2)
The Clinton campaign's efforts to raise doubts about Obama's sincerity and ability, had some success especially in Ohio. They'll keep up that line of attack as long as it wins elections for them.

The "take down Obama" strategy is not just about the big primaries, though. Remember that there will be lots of selecting of Democratic delegates over the next few months, in states that have already voted. There will be county conventions and state conventions, and in some cases the delegates are free to declare for whoever they want to.

Since Clinton can't win based on the current math, she has to persuade a lot of delegates to switch allegiances. And not just superdelegates. She does that by raising sufficient doubts about Obama, and positioning herself as the candidate with all the momentum over the next few months.

The disadvantage of the kitchen sink strategy is the position it leaves Clinton and the Democratic party in after the national convention. Waging a war of attrition for 5 more months seriously depletes the pool of donation money, the energy of the candidate and her team, and the enthusiasm of the national audience not to mention non-core supporters. Meanwhile McCain gets tanned, rested and ready.

But as Super Tuesday showed, Clinton's campaign strategy has a short term horizon with not much thought about contingencies.


VP choice (0.00 / 0)
If the nomination continues to stay this close then Obama has to offer the VP position to Clinton no matter what he thinks her answer will be.

John McCain would love to send your kids to war.

For the first time (4.00 / 1)
I'm starting to worry about the general. If HRC wins the nomination after alienating Obama's supporters, or Obama pulls it out too bruised and battered (or "Muslim" and "naive"), than we're looking at President McCain.  

Yeah... (4.00 / 2)
Unfortunately, I will still have to vote for Clinton if she steals the nomination but I won't like it.  I can't vote for McCain.  There is no viable 3rd party person and I still have party loyalty.  The nastier she gets though and the more Bush like she acts (I'm just waiting for her to pull a Bush South Carolina type event) the less and less I will want to support her.  I am guessing party loyalty wins out, unless she cuts backroom deals or picks Evan Bayh as VP.

I am really starting to despise her (and as Chris points out, I really dislike most of her supporters.  Most remind me of Bush Supporters frankly.  That will piss them off, but I don't care.  Its how I feel.) She is an arrogant, manipulative person who only cares about herself and not the party in general.  She is scummy, corrupt and if elected, will abandon her rhetoric and be a weak selfish President.  Others will disagree, but I don't care.  That's what she has shown me.

Personally, I hope he kneecaps.


[ Parent ]
It's an odd feeling, isn't it? (0.00 / 0)
Wanting a presidential candidate you are willing to pull the lever for to get a good kneecapping?

It's a zerosum game, though. Someone's going to get a yummy plate of schadenfreude soon enough I expect.

In the meantime, I'm still trying to digest a rather large slice of crow :)


[ Parent ]
PA blowout? (0.00 / 0)
I think there's an excellent chance that Hillary can rack up a 15+ point win in PA.  It's a closed primary in a state that is somewhat similar to Ohio (but closer to New York), and, according to exit polls, she won among Democrats in Ohio by a 58 to 40 margin.  I think a huge win there after a build-up of 6 weeks and without any other events that day would give her great momentum for the remainder of the campaign (which includes both the remaining primaries as well as the efforts to get super delegates).

All about mo' (0.00 / 0)
She would have to make her case for the nomination purely on the basis of momentum, because Obama will still lead in delegates and popular votes even if Clinton wins by a 15 point margin in PA.

The May 6 primary night is even bigger than PA in the delegates at stake, and Obama has big leads in those states IN and NC.

But everything can change fast, the polls are becoming very variable the week before election day.


[ Parent ]
She'll Split The Party (4.00 / 5)
Realistically, last night was a Pyrrhic victory for Hillary. She didn't get an appreciable gain in delegates, but she'll spin it as some sort of mandate. Further, she'll see that going negative works, and she'll go whole-hog on that for the next six weeks.

This is going to get REAL messy.


yes WE can versus yes SHE can (4.00 / 5)
How one defines this pural/singular contrast says alot about how they view politics - perhaps society - in general.

Do you see it as an issue of the majority expressing their views via a democratic process, or do you see it as a strong leader showing the masses how to get to where they want to be?

Pick your poison - pick your candidate.


"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."


Pronouns (4.00 / 2)
The whole "we", versus "she" or "I", thing is something I've seen commented on a lot in the primary campaign; that even Clinton supporters seem to view the race as something Clinton is doing, and even Obama talks about his victories as something "we" are doing.

The really interesting thing about the "yes she will" is that it seems to highlight something that's I think's been happening all along, but I hadn't consciously noticed before: If you think about it, it seems like when emotions run high in this race, when Obama supporters get mad, they start hating Hillary; and when Clinton supporters get mad, they start hating Obama supporters. Open enmity from the Obama camp winds up getting directed at Clinton and maybe her campaign staffers (Mark Penn etc); but the enmity of Clinton supporters seems to be most frequently directed not at Obama at all, but at the bratty little kids, "cultists", etc, who are voting Obama.

I'm not really sure what this means or what effect it has in the long run.


[ Parent ]
Public perceptions of the candidates is a part of it (0.00 / 0)
I think.

Hillary Clinton is a personality in our culture - she was a celebrity well before Barack Obama took to the national stage and started to be called a "rock star".

Moreover, Clinton (perhaps the M$M) has made the race about HER - about the individual.  Her experience, her life, and her story.  The campaign narrative that most reinforces her percieved strengths.

The Obama campaign has taken a more inclusive - "we the people" - approach.  It fits with his "let's all get together and solve our common problems" theme, but it also diffuses his individual characteristics - which is a trade-off.  

Question is: is this difference one of style, tactics, or substance? Does Obama put less focus on himself because he wants to "cover up" his relative lack of personal experience, or does he do so because he truly believes that the strongest political movements have the widest base?  Conversely, does Clinton focus on herself because she has an out-sized ego and wants all the power for herself, or because she truly believes that strong leaders are the way forward?

Not having the honor of evening seeing either of these two people in person, let alone actually talking to them - I have little of no data upon which to make such a decision.  I pretty much see voting as gambling, so I bet on Obama this time, because the Clintons have not been all that impressive on the leadership front, in my opinion. (and yes, I think its legit to judge Hillary Clinton based on Bill's career, to some extent, because she uses it as experience).

I choose the "poison" of the unknown quantity.


"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."


[ Parent ]
Obama's jumped the shark (0.00 / 0)
Anyone who is not seriously troubled by the prospect of Obama as the nominee is kidding themselves. It's obvious that he is very, very vulnerable as a candidate. He had the wind at his back, he had adoring press coverage, his opponent was written off for dead - and he walked into Ohio and lost by double digits.

Obama's support is deep but not very wide. This is a dangerous, dangerous candidate to nominate. After a six-month barrage of negativity from the GOP, his support will collapse. The true believers will be there for him, but swing voters will break towards McCain because they won't trust Obama to be president. He's too young, too green, too much of an unknown quantity.

When McCain, the presumptive nominee, started losing primaries to Mike Huckabee, we all agreed that it didn't speak well of McCain. Well, the same is true for Obama. The presumptive nominee doesn't lose by ten points in a big and important state like Ohio.

Time is running out. Nominee Obama means President McCain. This party needs to wake up, and quick.


She definitely knocked (4.00 / 1)
him to the canvas last night. I am an Obama supporter. I think you go too far in your assumptions about what last night's victories mean for this nomination contest and the general. But there is no doubt that he had every chance and opportunity to knock her out in TX and to at least keep it tight in OH and he failed at both.

He could have closed it out last night and he didn't. I'll give you that.


[ Parent ]
They never expected to win there... (0.00 / 0)
...the leaked memo from a month ago shows them losing Texas and Ohio...  they never expected to win it...

And, in the end, he only lost like 3 delegates!  So, the "victory" means little for her overall, except give her an excuse to sabotage Obama's chances in the general so she gets a shot in 2012...

She did best him, with a late FUD campaign that was mostly based on lies and implied muslim smears... done late so that they couldn't be challenged...

She used that old trick from the political playbook... she won't be able to use it as effectively again...

REID: Voting against us was never part of our arrangement!
SPECTER: I am altering the deal! Pray I don't alter it any further!
REID: This deal keeps getting worse all the time!


[ Parent ]
I disagree (0.00 / 0)
While her campaign certainly was negative and she threw the kitchen sink at him, her victory came down to energizing and holding her Latino base in Texas and her lower-income, working class base in OH. And women, which made up distinct majorities in both states.

Obama handled the NAFTA-gate (whatever you wanna call it, whatever you think of the merits) poorly.

You're right about the delegates, though. There's just no winning path for her.

Here's an undermentioned aspect of that -- her inability to turn reasonably solid victories into reasonably solid delegate wins serves to emphasize the deceptively overwhelming nature of Obama's wave of victories that led to his roughly 160 pledged delegate lead.  


[ Parent ]
Working the system (0.00 / 0)
Imagine if Democrats had a winner-take-all primary system. This contest would have been over a while ago.

[ Parent ]
Which way, though? (0.00 / 0)
I've often wondered this myself - what would have happened if the primaries had been winner take all? Obama has built his delegate leads by getting big wins in small states, while holding Hillary to narrow wins in the big states. It seems intuitively like a winner take all scenario would have made this less effective.

Imagine if Hillary had ALL of the delegates from California, New York, Texas, Ohio, etc.

Still, I don't know. It would be interesting if somebody ran the numbers.


[ Parent ]
WTA = Reverse of Now (Clinton +166) (0.00 / 0)
I haven't "fact checked" this, but I'm getting a 1404-1238 lead for Clinton if everything is WTA (a lead of 166) and Florida and Michigan do not count.

In Chronologial order

Obama gets Iowa-45, S.Car-45, Alabama-52, Alaska-13, Colorado-55, Conn-48, Del-15, Georgia-87, Idaho-18, Illinoi-153, Kansas-32, Minnesota-72, Missouria-72, NewMex-26, N.Dakota-13, Utah-23, Louisiana-56, Nebraska-24, VirginI-3, Wash-78, Maine-24, DemsAbroad-7, DC-15, Maryland-70, Virgina-83, Hawaii-20, Wiconsin-74, Vermont-15

Clinton gets NewHamp-22, Nevada-25, Arizona-56, Arkansas-35, Cali-370, Mass-93, NewJersey-107, NewYork-232, Okla-38, Tennessee-68, Ohio-141, RhodeIsl-21, Texas-193


[ Parent ]
Hillary jumped the shark in 1994 (4.00 / 1)
You're repeating Hillary's talking points from three months ago, before she lost 12 primaries in a row. Let me add a few more old talking points:

- The 'swing voters' will break for McCain if Hillary's the nominee, guaranteed. The GOP has spent so much effort bringing up her negatives that we simply lose independents to the GOP candidate (or to none-of-the-above) if she's the nominee.

- Obama's voters (young people) aren't coming to the polls in the general if Obama's not on the ticket. That will be a generation forever lost to Dems. They will absolutely come out for Obama against an ancient, out of touch, white dude with anger management problems. Hillary's Democratic party will be a party solely composed of Buick drivers. There's nothing wrong with Buick drivers, but they're not a working majority.

And a new one:

- Hillary has most recently been publicly complimenting McCain. Do you think she's really going to be effective fighting those words in the general? No, it's going to be a repeat of 2004. McCain's lack of money will be more than made up for by these little gifts from Hillary.


[ Parent ]
Old people decide elections (0.00 / 0)
I'll trade young voters for old voters every day. In Ohio, Hillary beat Obama among older voters by 30 points.  

[ Parent ]
Says the guy... (0.00 / 0)
who supports one of the most divisive and hated politicians of our time.  She'll get her ass kicked in the general and EVERYONE knows it.

[ Parent ]
this is a Democratic year regardless who is the nominee (0.00 / 0)
The economy is in a recession and the country is bogged down in pointless occupation of a foreign country that is making us less safe. Even Clinton with all her baggage won't manage to lose this election.

[ Parent ]
2000 (4.00 / 1)
2000... 2004.

Nuff said.


[ Parent ]
No. (0.00 / 0)
Not 'nuff said. 2008 is far away more amenable to Dems than 2004 or 2000.  

[ Parent ]
Not the point... (0.00 / 0)
You miss the point... We should have easily won in both years.  We didn't.  I'm saying don't be so stupid as to think this is going to be a cake walk as many seem to think.  It won't be easy.

So again...2000 and 2004.  Both slam dunk years.  Both losses.  Nuff SAID!


[ Parent ]
You have a point on 2000 (0.00 / 0)
but a much tougher argument, I think, on 2004. The country had not fully turned against Republicans, Bush, and the war as they have now. Bush's approval ratings were in positive territory in October 2004. The Republicans hadn't yet made their ill advised run at Social Security, hadn't stormed the Schialvo's hospital bed, etc.  

[ Parent ]
Right (0.00 / 0)
I think people underestimate just how much Kerry overperformed in 2004. It was the closest victory by an incumbent ever, if I remember correctly. It was certainly very, very close. This was despite a landscape that was very favorable to GWB. "Security" was still the overriding concern among the electorate, and it was only a few years removed from Bush's post-9/11 halo. People hadn't fully turned on the war yet. And on top of it, the economy wasn't yet in the tank.  AND STILL Kerry came damn close to knocking him off.  

[ Parent ]
Which "adoring" press? (0.00 / 0)
The narrative that he's a smooth-talking huckster that used to sell cocaine on the streets, or the narrative that his campaign is fairy-tale fueled by a cult of personality that is stealing away Hillary Cliton's nomination and thereby setting back feminism?



"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."


[ Parent ]
Yeah (0.00 / 0)
I hear Wolf Blitzer bemoaning Obama's effect on feminism all the time.

[ Parent ]
It was the topic of a call-in show on local public radio (0.00 / 0)
or, don't you consider NPR to be part of the mainstream?


"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."


[ Parent ]
Obama has better positions and more accomplishments (0.00 / 0)
He has the better economic recovery plan and vastly better foreign policy positions. He has Obama-Coburn, Obama-Lugar, lobbyist reform, and the proposed Stop (mortgage) Fraud act - all excellent legislation surpassing anything Hillary has ever done or proposed. Running against Mr. 100-year-war-privatize-SS-kill-the-minimum wage it will be a blowout. Hillary might still beat McCain because of his idiotic economic policies but she will be at a big disadvantage by having emphasized military accomplishments, assented to the Iraq War, and never having done anything substantial in the Senate.

[ Parent ]
Something I wonder about (0.00 / 0)
If Obama decided to retaliate in kind, I doubt his supporters will mind.

I think going "really" negative could be a real disaster for the Obama campaign; it ruins the message they've been building for three months, and all in response to a one-day delegate loss that I don't think is relatively speaking all that large? The last time the Obama campaign lost control of the momentum and media narrative, they regained it without significantly changing their message; I think they can do that again.

This said, I kind of think there might be one form of going negative that might not actually have any repercussions for Obama: subtly pointing out that at this point, the messages coming out of the Clinton campaign and McCain campaign have been frequently exactly identical. Pointing out how similar that Clinton and McCain seem at this point is something that can be done sort of non-negatively, in the normal course of campaigning against both-- in fact, nearly all the Obama campaign has to do to make that connection is point out that Obama is compaigning against both at this point, whereas Clinton and McCain are not really campaigning against each other. Of course, I don't have any idea if that connection, once drawn, is something that would actually change votes...


I don't like it from Hillary, and I wouldn't like it from Obama (0.00 / 0)
The McCain campaign can use this sort of thing against our eventual nominee.

Obama should keep taking the high road. The campaign just needs to do amuch  better job smacking down bad narratives. They let the NAFTA thing get away from them and it seems to have cost them dearly in Ohio.


[ Parent ]
Obama can criticize her more sharply using facts (0.00 / 0)
Obama has plenty of leeway to attack Clinton in a factual way that doesn't stoop to the type of slander and distortions she has engaged in. He's already (finally!) started to do so on her failure to read the NIE before voting for the AUMF. He can also easily raise the issue of her finances and demand she release her tax returns. That's a no brainer and it's astonishing the press has allowed her to get this far in the campaign without releasing them already. He can start poking holes in her 35 years of experience. If she's so experienced, why did she bungle health care reform so badly in 1993? Why has she accomplished nothing of note domestically in her 7 years as Senator? Why did she vote for the bankruptcy bill if she wanted it not to be passed? What special interests are financing her campaign or her husband's foundation?

[ Parent ]
Obama needs to show (4.00 / 1)
that he can pull himself off the canvass and get back to it.

He's got a couple things going for him on this. First, MS and WY are on deck. Nothing will help ease this pain blowing her out twice in succession. Will she even campaign there? If so, it probably won't work and it goes against her big state only strategy; if not, it'll look bad given that she needs everything she can get. Second, the 'difficult delegate math' memes are widely circulating; this could provide cover for SDs looking to support Obama.

And, since I was quite vocally insisting that Obama would sweep, I want to take this opportunity to eat my share of crow. Everything I've been saying for the last week was BS, apparently.


Nafta (4.00 / 1)
I blame the Nafta thing for the Ohio loss... while I was expecting him to lose, it would have been closer.  THAT was his fault.  He screwed up and handed her that.  He never should have made the claim his advisor hasn't talked to canada.  I think that the interpretations of the memo are bullshit but he shouldn't have made that claim.

Texas he made close.  The demos worked against him and to get that close was a positive.  


[ Parent ]
Get ready for the onslaught! (4.00 / 1)
I doubt that there is any reticence now for the Obama campaign staff to spend that $60 million they got in Feb. on opening the closet on all the Clinton skeletons and sharing with everyone. And if this and other blogs are any measure of the antipathy that supporters have for one another, then all bets are off. As Hillary said, "Let the fun begin!" She has said he's an empty suit and endorsed McCain over him, so I guess it's time to show otherwise. Too bad it's come to this.

Who Can Win? (0.00 / 0)
It's time to step back from delegate counts and look at who can win in November.

To me, that's a no-brainer. Who has won the big blue states? Hillary. Does it really matter who can rack up delegates by winning in little red states?

Obama can pick up delegates in Georgia and Alabama, sure -- but I'll follow voters in California and Ohio every time.


But... (0.00 / 0)
...she loses WI and OR...

How does she make up that deficit?  She can't!

REID: Voting against us was never part of our arrangement!
SPECTER: I am altering the deal! Pray I don't alter it any further!
REID: This deal keeps getting worse all the time!


[ Parent ]
This line of argument is so tired and wrong (4.00 / 1)
Have you ever wondered why Democratic candidates don't spend much time in a general election campaigning in NY, CA, and MA?  It is because they are considered more or less safe and will be whether the candidate is Clinton or Obama.

This is why "swing" states are more important in a general election (do you remember last election?).  You have an argument about OH at your disposal here--she seems to have an advantage.  However, Obama won MO which is a very important swing state, too, and as the reply above points out, he would have a great chance in the general with both WI and OR.

Not to mention that he keeps MD secure, puts VA in play, CO, etc.  States like VA she will have absolutely no chance in, unfortunately.  The electoral map over all looks better for Obama than Clinton.

I believe that either can win and hope will win.  But pushing CA to write-off Obama is ridiculous.


[ Parent ]
Thats because.. (0.00 / 0)
They seem to think that nothing exists between the East Coast and California.  

[ Parent ]
How about (0.00 / 0)
How about Virginia, Illinois, Georgia, Wisconsin, Maryland? Those are all pretty big states when it comes to delegates, with about 100 delegates or more.

Kerry took the big blue states in 2004, it didn't win him the election.


[ Parent ]
Lets see (0.00 / 0)
Ohio isn't a blue state.  Cali will go to either Dem.  

Is Missouri a big state?  If so, then Obama has won the same amount of Big States as Hillary has.


[ Parent ]
Dunno (0.00 / 0)
Missouri has 11 electoral votes, Ohio has 22. Still, point taken.

Might be noted, though, that Missouri, over the last few years, has started to look more like a solid red state than a swing state. McCaskil won, but she ran a pretty conservative campaign.  


[ Parent ]
Well... (0.00 / 0)
as long as we're counting Missouri's 11 EVs then we may as well count WA (10), Minn (10), MD (10), VA (12), WI (10), CO (9) all IIRC.

[ Parent ]
Donate to Open Left









QUICK HITS

Friends of the Earth thanks the OpenLeft community for the ideas you generate and your contributions to the progressive movement.


blog advertising is good for you
blog advertising is good for you
SEARCH

   

Advanced Search