Andrea Mitchell Reporting Clinton Team Expects 2nd Place

Yes, more MSNBC watching...

This is interesting and probably explains the Clinton team's shift in their expectations rhetoric. On Hardball, Andrea Mitchell just said the Clinton campaign expects the order to be Obama - Clinton - Edwards.

They think they will do no worse than second. They don't think they will come in 3rd. They think that Edwards is locked in at 3rd. Their own polling mirrors what other polling shows, that if traditional Democrats turn out, they can win, if women come out, that's obviously in her favor...If Obama doesn't win by too much, they still think from their overnights in NH, which shows her back up in NH, she can still recover there, but if it's a big Obama win here, then they've got a problem, then he's got a big bounce going into New Hampshire.

She also said the Clinton campaign believes, even if they lose in NH and South Carolina, that they see February 5th as their firewall. That seems like wishful thinking.

Tags: 2008 Presidential Campaign, Barack Obama, Democratic Iowa caucus, Hillary Clinton, John Edwards (all tags)



Re: Andrea Mitchell Reporting Clinton Team Expects

Todd, the title here is misleading.  They expect to do "no worse than second." It doesn't necessarily mean they expect to BE in second.

by KyleSIU 2008-01-03 12:39PM | 0 recs
Re: Andrea Mitchell Reporting Clinton Team Expects

Based on the quote, I think  what they are saying is "Noone knows for sure what the turnout will look like. With the right turnout we will win.  But even if the turnout isn't in our favor, we will still beat John Edwards."

by Mike Pridmore 2008-01-03 12:44PM | 0 recs
someone I know who is very involved

with the Clinton campaign told me yesterday that she expects either Clinton or Edwards to win, not Obama.

I suspect the Clinton campaign is trying to puff up Obama's expectations even more. I am not convinced that they really think Obama will win.

by desmoinesdem 2008-01-03 01:19PM | 0 recs
that seems likely...

but it doesn't make sense to me.  would you go out in this cold if you heard that edwards was planning on losing?

by bored now 2008-01-03 01:23PM | 0 recs
most Iowans don't read blogs

and don't watch Andrea Mitchell either. JRE's supporters will not have heard anything about this story, and even if they did, I am confident that they would turn out.

Iowans have been dealing with cold weather for a long time. It's not terrible out there tonight.

by desmoinesdem 2008-01-03 01:30PM | 0 recs
Re: Andrea Mitchell

Well, they've started setting expectations before anyone shows up. I can see the 5th as a firewall because there are lots of closed primaries and the internals in a lot of polls don't favor Obama.

by Ga6thDem 2008-01-03 12:42PM | 0 recs
yeah, but...

it doesn't help motivate hillary's caucus goers.  especially reluctant supporters will see this and think, 'what's the point?  she doesn't win if i go, or lose if i don't.'  i sure wouldn't want to lower expectations before i had my people at their precincts...

by bored now 2008-01-03 01:02PM | 0 recs
Re: Andrea Mitchell Reporting

I think this reinforces my feeling that either Clinton or Obama will win.  Obviously, Team Clinton wants to frame as an upset.  I don't think they'd say anything re Edwards in 3rd place unless they were very certain of that.  This could be an indication that no Clinton/Edwards deal is forthcoming - they'd rather stay as close to Obama as possible.

Edwards is completely done if he finishes third.

by NC State Dem 2008-01-03 12:44PM | 0 recs
For a year I have heard

from the others that Edwards is done.

But here he is.  

All this spin and prediction is noise.    

by TomP 2008-01-03 12:51PM | 0 recs
What an in the tank Obama turd Barnicle ...

Mike Barnicle is so in the tank. He is hitting talking points on Hardball?  Everytime Chris goes to him he pushes the Clinton thinks she is owed this nonsense.

If Clinton thought she was owed she would have pulled a Rudy and skipped the early states.

She is competing and competing to win and spending millions in the early states ... unlike a Rudy who think he can cruise later.  She doesn't feel owed.

Matthews and Barnicle are peices of dung.

by dpANDREWS 2008-01-03 12:45PM | 0 recs
Matthews trying to help Rudy...

That is my theory.

He hates Huckabee almost as much as Hillary.  He wants to clear our Clinton on the d side and the evangelical on the r side.

by dpANDREWS 2008-01-03 12:59PM | 0 recs
Re: Andrea Mitchell Reporting Clinton Team

I think Edwards finishing third also is wishful thinking for Clinton.

For the inevitable candidate, she sure collapsed quickly.

I think it's a close race and all the spinning is just that: spinning.  Still, it is surprising to see Clinton's camp lowering expectations so soon.

Penn relies on polls too much.

by TomP 2008-01-03 12:49PM | 0 recs
Don't forget that for Clinton, the worst ...

... outcome is finishing third (and therefore automatically behind Obama), and the second worst outcome is finishing behind Obama and ceding a "bump" in NH that, on current polling, would certainly place Obama ahead of Clinton and Clinton looking for a way to catch up in a couple of days.

If she finished second behind Edwards, she'd be able to hope to hold onto her lead in NH.

Picking her second worst outcome as one of two possible outcomes is an effort to inoculate against a serious setback. It also primes her supporters to go "Anyone But Obama" in the precincts where she falls below viability.

by BruceMcF 2008-01-03 12:58PM | 0 recs
Re: Don't forget that for Clinton, the worst ...

Worst for Clinton?:

worst: Obama-Edwards-Clinton
2nd worst: Obama-Clinton-Edwards
3rd worst: Edwards-Obama-Clinton
3rd best: Edwards-Clinton-Obama
2nd best: Clinton-Edwards-Obama
best: Clinton-Obama-Edwards

Best for Edwards would likely be Edwards-Clinton-Obama, because it effectively takes Obama out of New Hampshire which serves to help him the most. Edwards-Obama-Clinton would also likely do that, but not as much, but on the plus side it'd hurt Clinton further in New Hampshire. On the other hand, Clinton-Edwards-Obama wouldn't be the worst ranking in the world for Edwards; it's something Edwards could possibly overcome in New Hampshire as he'd be the new anti-Clinton.

ahhh caucus day...

by KainIIIC 2008-01-03 01:29PM | 0 recs
Re: Don't forget that for Clinton, the worst ...

Down there in the middle of the list, I dunno, but definitely finishing third is the two worst outcomes, finishing third with Obama on top the worst of the two.

No way her NH support does not dip substantially with a third place result in IA. Second place ... she can survive. Indeed, two third place finishes for Edwards, in IA and NH, and she seems likely to take both the NV caucus (Culinary will stay on the sidelines) and possibly SC. And of course some real victories nullify the laugh factory of winning the phony primaries in Michigan and Florida.

by BruceMcF 2008-01-03 02:40PM | 0 recs
Re: Andrea Mitchell Reporting Clinton Team

A Clinton collapse is wishful thinking on your part. I don't know that Edwards is going to come in last but Clinton certainly won't collapse no matter what happens in IA. If she loses, it'll probably be "the comeback kid part 2".

by Ga6thDem 2008-01-03 12:58PM | 0 recs
Re: Andrea Mitchell

Ah, yes, indeed--Andrea Mitchell and her MSNBC team of Clinton haters, now echoed by the anti-Clinton bloggers.  

And misrepresenting the correct quote--leave that to the MSM, so desperate for their darling Obama.

Indeed, it means just the opposite--that the Clinton team, brilliantly, is lowering expectations--to emerge triumphant, and thus reveal that ARG, which has consistently predicted a Clinton win by a comfortable margin, was not far off the money on the actual win.

She is in an excellent position now in New Hampshire--and beyond, precisely where her team wants her to be.

A brilliant tactical move by the Clinton team!

by lambros 2008-01-03 12:53PM | 0 recs
Re: Andrea Mitchell

u get the prize for most upbeat clinton supporter of the nite. IMO if HRC loses tonite I think she needs to win at least once before the feb 5 races. I know its a cliché but otherwise the media will destroy her as the candidate with no momentum. her lead will deteriorate and we,re going to be having the debate of whether we should go with the establishment/"safe" choice or obama. I don't think she can win that debate.

by highgrade 2008-01-03 01:08PM | 0 recs
screw the media

They are not our friends.  How is it that you people forget and/or forgive what they did to gore in 2000?

If it was up to them, hillary would be at 2%, not 40 plus.

you really ought to stop believing them, even when they say things you like.  

Remember this.  Theyre ALWAYS wrong.  You'll see soon enough.

Hillary can lose IA, NH and SC and still be our nominee, watch.  If she wins ONE of these states, its all over.

by Seymour Glass 2008-01-03 01:22PM | 0 recs
Clinton will have at least 3 Jan wins.

Then it's super Tuesday.

by ottovbvs 2008-01-03 01:50PM | 0 recs
Clinton will have at least 3 Jan wins.

Then it's super Tuesday.

by ottovbvs 2008-01-03 01:50PM | 0 recs
Re: Andrea Mitchell Reporting Clinton

I completely disagree.  The best situation for Obama is Obama/Clinton/Edwards and the best situation for Edwards would be Edwards/Clinton/Obama.  Edwards and Obama are competing to be the anti-Clinton and if they come one and two then they will have to continue to fight each other.

by jlwolff 2008-01-03 12:55PM | 0 recs
Doesn't seem like wishful thinking to me

Assuming Clinton has close losses in IA & NH:

(1) The latest national polls have her national lead back up in the 20-point range.

(2) Only 150K Iowans, at most, will caucus, and there is not a great history of Iowa changing things dramatically.  Obama is from a neighboring state and Clinton started late in Iowa, so a close loss scarcely shows that the party is against her.

(3) In NH, unless something changes dramatically, she wins easily among Democrats and it's only independents who bring Obama into the picture.

Of course, all this is subtext and the headlines would scream something else, but there is time for subtext to come into play, and this is especially true now that the heat is starting to focus on Golden Boy for a change.

by Trickster 2008-01-03 12:55PM | 0 recs
Iowa changing things

Hmmm. It's my understanding that Iowa changed some things in 2004. Kerry was running a ridiculously bad campaign and basically ran away with the thing after two things happened in Iowa:

1. He got momentum from a big win + a favorable and meaningful media message (that he was supposedly electable)

2. His main opponent, Dean, imploded.

It's not hard to imagine the media giving Obama some ridiculously positive coverage (since they seem to love him) and then some really bad coverage to Hillary after she finishes at a pathetically far back 3rd place. I say "pathetically" because she in an incumbent with Bill Clinton campaigning daily for her.

by mcdave 2008-01-03 01:26PM | 0 recs
Clinton is not Dean as must be apparent

to even the most politically uninformed. Why do people keep assuming that history with totally different circumstances is any guide to what happens. I suppose Journalists have trained them to think like this.  

by ottovbvs 2008-01-03 01:53PM | 0 recs
Re: Iowa changing things

If she's in a "pathetically far back" 3rd place, then I agree that something significant can result from that, but I don't call within 5 points of first place "pathetically far back" or even "far back."

And by the way, is your last line an attempt at spin?  It's pretty far-fetched to call her an "incumbent."  I don't see her riding Air Force One around or making pronouncements from the Rose Garden.

by Trickster 2008-01-03 02:13PM | 0 recs
Re: Andrea Mitchell Reporting Clinton

You're right about that. If it's Clinton vs. Obama he will lose especially in the states with large hispanic populations. Survey usa did a poll yesterday on CA on the primary yesterday that had Obama garnering only 19% of the hispanic vote to Clinton's 62%.

by Ga6thDem 2008-01-03 12:56PM | 0 recs
Re: Andrea Mitchell Reporting Clinton

you know, you don't seem to be pro-anybody;  rather, you're just anti-obama.

what's your problem with this democrat?  I have plenty of problems with most of the candidates, but i don't make them the one-and-only focus of my posts.  why are you so intent on bringing obama down???

by bluedavid 2008-01-03 01:17PM | 0 recs
Re: Andrea Mitchell Reporting Clinton

I think he's the weakest candidate for the general election. I know what the GOP has in store for him and it's pretty bad. I think that's why he constantly running to right because he knows it too.

And I'm basing my belief on polls that show him losing all the swing states.

He's a great speaker and apparently the young voters like him which is a good thing.

My main focus is the health plan and his is the worst. And I don't like the fact that he's already caving to the GOP because he thinks they might attack him when the things they are going to attack him on are worse than his health plan.

by Ga6thDem 2008-01-03 07:45PM | 0 recs
Re: Andrea Mitchell Reporting Clinton Team Expects

Aaaaah hopefully we'll know by next week.

by MNPundit 2008-01-03 12:57PM | 0 recs
2/5 firewall

It's entirely plausible. Clinton wins AR, NY, NJ, and CT. Obama wins IL and UT. Who wins the deep south where African-Americans make up 40-55% of the vote? either one can make a cross-cutting coalition. Who wins CA? She'll have four weeks to make the case that the Obama health care plan would leave people out in the cold.

by niq 2008-01-03 12:57PM | 0 recs
Re: 2/5 firewall

Here in metro Atlanta there are more hispanics than african americans so she'll probably win vs. Obama here. Obama might win MS or AL or SC depending on who comes out to vote though the latest poll out of Alabama has her winning the primary there by about 20 pts.

by Ga6thDem 2008-01-03 01:01PM | 0 recs
Re: 2/5 firewall

Interestingly enough, a Georgia poll has the race deadlocked. Pretty meaningless though. one is paying much attention in those states, and they will probably react to elite opinion (media and previous caucus states).

by mcdave 2008-01-03 01:23PM | 0 recs
Re: Andrea Mitchell Reporting Clinton Team Expects

I just can't escape this feeling that these last 2 hours before the first results are going to be the last hopeful feelings we all share before we watch the Hillary Machine roll to victory.

by island empire 2008-01-03 01:01PM | 0 recs
wishful thinking?

maybe on your part it seems.

Clinton leads by 20 points plus in feb 5 states.

Though many dont seem to understand this, our primaries are about winning DELEGATES, not about winning 'good press" from the same media that trashed Gore and put Bush in the White House.

Feb 5 states dont allow independents to steal into and distort our process and Hillary crushes when polls include just Dems.

Stick with your CW, Ill go with the words of the big dawg about IA and the british oddsmakers that still have hillary over obama by 5 to 1 - while saying Obama will win IA.  

Everyone knows Obama can win SC, its a majority black primary, hell Jesse Jackson won SC, so who wouldnt expect him to. He will get no actual mo from that. None.

If Hillary loses NV, I will admit theres trouble, there will be a bloody battle and Obama, being the media's darling, could pull it out. But, if she wins there, shes our nominee.

Obama has to sweep, anything less and he's done.

Sorry fella.  But just wait, you'll see.

by Seymour Glass 2008-01-03 01:04PM | 0 recs
Re: wishful thinking?

Whoaaaaaaaaaaaa there nelly. Lets take it one step/state at a time, eh!

by crackityjones 2008-01-03 01:09PM | 0 recs
Re: wishful thinking?

Take a political science class. In states where there hasn't been any real campaigning, the support is incredibly soft for all candidates...

Then you have this little thing called bandwagon support. Rationally, it makes sense. Voters don't know much about clinton/Edwards/Obama so they look for cues from elsewhere. One major cue would be Iowa and Nh voting for Obama...

by mcdave 2008-01-03 01:21PM | 0 recs
political science class??!!

jeesuus h ridiculouus!

Im in NH right now - as I have been just about every 4 years for over 25 years, when i was a college fresshme and firs found that real politics was nothing like the classroom or the media described it.

Its about org and obama has no org outside of ia, nh, sc. The day after NH, Ill be heading to PA and working with the same people Ive worked with and won with - in many primaries and elections...and Obama will be trying to build an org from scratch.

political science class???

Ill go with 6 million union members buuddy .

just wait, in the coming weeks, youll see stuff you can never learn in school.

by Seymour Glass 2008-01-03 01:34PM | 0 recs
Re: political science class??!!

Uh...he just opened an office in Alaska.  First person to do so since the 70's.

by Piuma 2008-01-03 01:46PM | 0 recs

and how many delegates are there in ak?

my god.  you do understand this is about getting 2000 plus delegates , right?

setting up an office...jeeze...

by Seymour Glass 2008-01-03 02:01PM | 0 recs
Re: alaska!!!!!/?

you are so uninformed!! obama has the largest national organization of any candidate.  He has field offices all over the country in a move that IMO is modeled on Dean's 50-state strategy.  Matter fact, he's even got a good-sized presence here in senator clinton's own NEW YORK for chrissakes!!

possibly b/c his campaign is a good bit smarter than a lot of bloggers want to admit.  they know that ny splits delegates proportionally, so even though hillary will (almost) definitely win here, he can still pick up some delegates.  same story elsewhere...

by bluedavid 2008-01-03 02:28PM | 0 recs
Re: alaska!!!!!/?

Volunteers got the necessary petition signatures in NY within days, and the organisation is very self-directed and motivated as it was not a state to which Obama's campaign devoted much resource, for obvious reasons.  But we are there in surprising strength.

by Shaun Appleby 2008-01-03 02:33PM | 0 recs
Re: alaska!!!!!/?


well, Im not even gonna tell you how little that impresses me.

We are gonna crush him org wise in all the major states.  like a steamroller.

by Seymour Glass 2008-01-03 02:48PM | 0 recs
Re: alaska!!!!!/?

Tall ones, Coors Original.

by Shaun Appleby 2008-01-03 02:53PM | 0 recs
Re: alaska!!!!!/?



oops caps - sorry!

by Seymour Glass 2008-01-03 02:45PM | 0 recs
Re: alaska!!!!!/?

You realise that 'abo' has unfortunate connotations, I know you didn't intend them.

ab·o  ˈæboʊ [ab-oh], plural  ab·os, adjective  -noun
        Australian Disparaging and Offensive.

1.    an Aborigine. -adjective

by Shaun Appleby 2008-01-03 03:01PM | 0 recs
Re: alaska!!!!!/?

not here - so no foul.

hell, here its verboten to use the word indian, even though thats the exact word used in "indian country" itself. [per ex - indian country today - is the pan tribal natl paper}

hey saw a great aussie movie over xmas - written by nick cave - about a bad bunch of bad rangers - circa 1888 or so -- twas actually quit good, starred john hustons son as the top very, very bad guy.

by Seymour Glass 2008-01-03 03:26PM | 0 recs
Re: alaska!!!!!/?

Global economy, global foul.  You've been warned.  Bad form if ya' do.

by Shaun Appleby 2008-01-03 03:31PM | 0 recs
Re: wishful thinking?

Good to see ya', Seymour.  Are you enjoying this?  Exciting stuff.

by Shaun Appleby 2008-01-03 01:28PM | 0 recs
hey bucko

im cold and busy and trying to not smoke.

a triple blah.

but i am in war mode and feeling very good and bad about the granite state.

in some ways id be willing to give nh to obama to just stop mccain.  he is growing wildly popular up here again and if some indies go from obama to mccain - and some seem to be doing just this - oh man - we could be so screwed.

but i also would like this intercine battle to be over before the real bloodletting begins. i still KNOW how this will end, i just dont know what the damage will be - with bloomberg obviously willing to run and taking advantage of obamas's loss and his supporters anger at this.

so do i want obama to lose if that means mccain wins?  thats my dilemma. i truly think mccain is the one guy who can beat us.  id even bet on him right now, so, its a troubling situation.  and of course if obama losses in ia, that about guarantees a mccain win in nh.

oh, it truly sucks.  a lose, lose.

that and the no smoking bit is making me grumpy - but i will be drunk later tonight watching the returns in a manchester pool hall, so there is that to look forward to.

go surfing.

by Seymour Glass 2008-01-03 01:53PM | 0 recs
Re: hey bucko

Flooding-in here.  Fifteen inches of rain in four days.  I agree with you there is a critical Obama/McCain contest for independents in NH, for once we are aligned on the ground as well as in the pantheon of leftist heroes.  You're never going to resist a cigarette after a few drinks, good on ya' if ya' do.  Happy New Year and cheer up.  

by Shaun Appleby 2008-01-03 02:30PM | 0 recs

but - how many times can you give in - till its back to the old pack a day?

i didnt promise to quit, but i did promise to try.

ive not smoked since the 26th.....aaaaagh!

can i just smoke for an eve?

ive never been here before - never tried to quit - personally i dont give a damn, but i do care about the dame who asked me to try.

f. merde. damn.

alright im done - see ya - a vermont catamount ale is calling me.

btw, warm rain rocks!

give ita day or two, borrow a kayak and hit the creeks!  greatest fun.

by Seymour Glass 2008-01-03 03:15PM | 0 recs
Re: yeah

The local kids go out with BMX helmets and boogie-boards to ride the swollen rocky creeks.  I'm a little to old for that.  

The best reason to quit anything is in favour of a stronger, more satisfying vice, wishing you luck.

by Shaun Appleby 2008-01-03 03:20PM | 0 recs
Re: yeah

well, THATS being planned for the night of the primary.

win, lose AND draw...if you know what I mean.  

by Seymour Glass 2008-01-03 03:29PM | 0 recs
Re: yeah

the boogie bording sounds GREAT.

you oughta try it. Iv seen that in mags, I LUV boogie bording in waves, I would luv to try that.

by Seymour Glass 2008-01-03 03:31PM | 0 recs
for what it's worth...

I think you are the most effective and dangerous Clinton supporter on this site since I've been looking here in March.  

by mboehm 2008-01-03 02:39PM | 0 recs
well thank ye

I really am very worried about this mcCain revival.  I really always expected it, their other candidates are just soo frigging weak...and mccain is soooo frigging strong.

Hes a real live hero, the media love him and hes FUNNY!  Those november polls dont mean shit.  The idea that all the dems beat him easily is so laughable.

Ive been working a bit for a few weeks on a response to Romney, but Im very nervous that the smart guys in the GOP will start to dump romney - who they really, really, really, REALLY want - because they will begin to understand that his "story" just aint gonna carry till full term...and they will begin to realize that mccain will give them most of what they want anyhow, except the tax cuts for the richest, which is really what its all about and always has been.

A half a loaf is better than a lefty woman in the WH and the idea that the Clintons will be elected again, oh - their pride, id and ego just wont allow that, so Im expecting a big push to McCain, starting with Thompson.

Be afraid. And root for Romney.

by Seymour Glass 2008-01-03 03:06PM | 0 recs
Strange "loser mentality"

The HRC Campaign is acting increasingly strange and desperate. I don't recall in 2004 seeing the other candidates saying they expected to come in 2nd? Anyone recall Edwards, Kerry or Dean lowering expectations before the voting? I do not.

Its very bizzare. You'd think the Clinton camp would want to pump up its supporters not make them feel like they are already losers before they even head out to the poll. This "loser mentality" could have particular impact in a caucus environment where the HRC supporters walk in with their heads down even before they've gathered. Its not the kind of thing that attracts others....

by crackityjones 2008-01-03 01:05PM | 0 recs
Re: Strange "loser mentality"

I mean many people will be watching TV evening news or checking internet before heading to polls...They'll come face to face with things like Bill saying he didn't win until Georgia...

very weird.

by crackityjones 2008-01-03 01:06PM | 0 recs
Re: Strange "loser mentality"

It may be a signal from Clinton to her supporters to help Edwards get extra delegates at Obama's expense, which has been their clear strategy for weeks.

by desmoulins 2008-01-03 01:43PM | 0 recs

hey, Todd, why ignore Nevada? I know the big media does it all the time but why do you act like there's nada between NH and SC? Essentially, Nevada is the big Clinton firewall. They've had similar numbers in Nevada as nationally. If Clinton loses IA and NH and wins NV she could rebound. If she loses NV in such a scenario I believe her campaign is basically over.

by Sven at My Silver State 2008-01-03 01:15PM | 0 recs
Re: Nevada

possibly. The problem with Nevada is that there hasn't been much campaigning there. In other words - the support for everyone is soft, and probably suceptible to bandwagon forces...

by mcdave 2008-01-03 01:19PM | 0 recs
Nevada = Iowa

The same thing that is happening with Obama large scale independent and a bit of Republican support in Iowa is going to happen in Nevada.

by mboehm 2008-01-03 01:31PM | 0 recs
Re: Andrea Mitchell Reporting Clinton Team Expects

She also said the Clinton campaign believes, even if they lose in NH and South Carolina, that they see February 5th as their firewall. That seems like wishful thinking.

not at all. That is what happened in 1992. Bill was dead in the water until Super Tuesday.

by Alice Marshall 2008-01-03 01:16PM | 0 recs
Re: Andrea Mitchell Reporting Clinton Team Expects

1992 has nothing to do with 2008. Voters process information quicker and Clinton wasn't the establishment candidate who had a devasting loss...

by mcdave 2008-01-03 01:18PM | 0 recs
We're all smarter than in 1992

So why'd we elect Bush in 2004. This is one of the most absurd statements of spin I've heard in a while. I think I'll save it.

by ottovbvs 2008-01-03 01:59PM | 0 recs

Walter Mondale is telling folks that the Clinton campaign will finish 3rd behind Edwards (2nd) and Obama (1st).

by mcdave 2008-01-03 01:17PM | 0 recs
Re: Mondale...

McDave is now relying on Walter Mondale. It's so funny.

by ottovbvs 2008-01-03 02:00PM | 0 recs
Re: Mondale...

McDave is now relying on Walter Mondale. It's so funny.

by ottovbvs 2008-01-03 02:00PM | 0 recs
They know they can't survive finishing 3 anyway.

The Clinton campaign loses nothing with this B.S. claim. They're trying to lower expectations.

by MeanBoneII 2008-01-03 01:19PM | 0 recs
Re: Andrea Mitchell Reporting Clinton Team Expects

Tick...tick ...tick..
Yep I love the Edwards third scenario...

"We didn't see it coming.."
These folks see it coming torylink_1231_103.aspx

by nogo war 2008-01-03 01:22PM | 0 recs
Be realistic Todd

There are actually 6 contests in Jan.  I predict she does no worse than 2, probably wins 3-4.  

Even 2 would keep her viable for Feb 5.  Even if they are MI and FL (I think she owns NV).

Look where the delegates are.  

Obama doesn't have a prayer in TX, NY, NJ, OH, and PA.  Not a prayer.  PA, TX and OH may as well be Mississippi for Obama.  NY and NJ are home turf for Clinton.  These are just facts.

Clinton wins it.  The only questions is how much pain she has to endure to win it.

by dpANDREWS 2008-01-03 01:29PM | 0 recs
Thanks for the report Todd

As a HRC supporter, I'm feeling really good tonight, especially with these latest lowering of expectations comments by the Clinton camp.

I remember election night 2004 when Pres. Bush and his camp lowered expectations and Howard Fineman and all of the rest of the MSNBC pundits declared that Kerry was the winner. Remember that? All the exit polls were saying that it was a close race but Kerry would win in the end. I'm sensing some deva ju here.

It's all about microtargeting, people!! Check out what Vilsack said to the Politico recently:

Former governor spills HRC's secret

Former Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack, who is backing Hillary Clinton, just told me Clinton's secret weapon in Iowa: the Asian and Pacific Islander community here.


Many of them are boat people," Vilsack said, referring to Vietnamese refugees who came to this country in the years after the fall of Saigon in 1975. "We, in Iowa, opened up our hearts and homes to them."

In those days, immigration wasn't quite as controversial as it is now.

Vilsack noted that the community used to vote Republican but that, starting in 1988, the Democrats "made a real effort to reach out to them."


Though the Asian and Pacific Islander community in Iowa probably numbers no more than 4,000 people, that easily could be the margin of victory here. 8/7693.html

This all sounds so familiar. Remember when the Bush team won b/c of pockets of evangelicals spread out throughout certain states like Ohio supported them? If you recall, the polls didn't pick up on small subgroups of Amish etc. I think what Vilsack is talking about here is that the Clinton campaign specifically targeted this group of people. I'm going to guess that they are spread out in certain areas of Iowa that will help Clinton win the state.

Microtargeting, ain't it grand?

by ademption 2008-01-03 01:39PM | 0 recs
Re: Andrea Mitchell Reporting Clinton Team Expects

I'm almost certain that the top three finishers will be Edwards, Obama, and Clinton.

Though not necessarily in that order.

by OrangeFur 2008-01-03 02:03PM | 0 recs
Biased Media

I'm tired of the media. CNN and Msnbc are both talking about how it will be Clinton or they will reject her and go to Obama. No mention of Edwards whatsoever. They are making their unfairness quite clear tonight.

by Progressive America 2008-01-03 02:03PM | 0 recs
Re: Andrea Mitchell Reporting Clinton Team Expects

oh dar - im in a rush - but u seem sooooo nice!  so..

1.  fl and mi had their delegates taken away cause they tried to move their primaries up early in the calender beyond a date that the dnc - as a voting committee - warned and had made rules saying any state that did this would be stripped of thier delegates.  This is all bs long term, because there is NO WAY that those states wont have delegates at the convention.  No way that will happen.  They will be sat.  Hillary will win both tho states huge and the ill be a big part of her big mo.

2.  The media will sure TRY!  The damn political media is doing to Hillary the exact same thing they did to gore in 2000.  remember Gore just BARELY beat Bradley in NH that year and just like that year - again it will be the non dem independents that will decide the victor in NH.  If th go with McCain - obama loses - if they go with Obama - he wins....but after that....??  All of the feb 5 states except for GA - DO NOT ALLOW indies in to mess with our choice.  Most dont know or understand this.  But again, the media are outright rooting for Obama - jus like they did for Bradley and it is a great advantage for him in NH.  btw, just like 2000, Im in NH right now.

3. yup. my original home state of delaware used to be that way too, but no longer.  Its the DUMBEST process.  I did them for Clinton back in the day, it was my first job for those lovely people. Its all about getting your volunteers out.  Its like a cheer off.  Who gives a fig?!  If Hill loses in IA - dont give a damn - it means nothing in the long term plan to get to 2500 delegates.

Remember. Obama has to win ALL of the first 4 to really stay alive.  All.

where are you in CA? Are you hooked in yet?  Its very possible CA will be the most important stare in the primaries period.

by Seymour Glass 2008-01-03 03:58PM | 0 recs


Advertise Blogads