A Tie Goes To Clinton

Expectations can be a bitch. The recent polls showing Obama moving up (especially in Clinton country i.e. CA & NJ) plus those early exit polls today certainly created some expectations for tonight that simply weren't met, which is fairly ridiculous considering how many states Barack Obama won and the fact that he's actually likely to win more Super Tuesday delegates than Clinton. But the psychological element of what constitutes a win and momentum is very real.

Josh Marshall sums up the takeaway from tonight well:

If you look at this from the vantage point of two weeks ago, it's a huge win for Obama, since he was trailing in states across the country by a very big margin. From the vantage point of the last couple days, however, it's much less clear. The hype of his momentum just got a bit out ahead of what he was able to pull off. And in that sense there's very mild echo of New Hampshire, though the Clinton campaign is silly to claim some sort of comeback. There were a handful of states which, had he won two or more of them, would have taken him from a delegate tie to a decisive win that would have been Clinton seriously on the defensive. But it didn't happen. Not in New Jersey or Massachusetts and most importantly not in California, which Clinton won decisively.

Tucker Carlson expressed this idea that Clinton was a sort of de facto winner out of tonight in a comment he made to Chris Jansing on MSNBC earlier. He was talking about who'd be best equipped to go up against McCain in November and he said

"If Obama wins the nomination, which I now think is less likely..."

That said it all. And Nora O'Donnell asked an interesting question as well when discussing exit polls that stated voters' overwhelming desire for change:

"If people want change so much, why isn't Obama winning this outright?"

Not that I think Tucker Carlson in particular is an arbiter of truth in journalism nor do I think his words can be separated from his own agenda, but to the extent that his and O'Donnell's comments represent conventional media thinking, and I think that's actually quite likely, the headlines stating that Clinton and Obama "Trade Victories," and that the race is "Not Settled" are telling and indeed represent a non-victory victory for Hillary Clinton; as New Hampshire before it, tonight was the equivalent of hitting a reset button. At least that's how it seems from where I'm sitting.

Update [2008-2-6 3:43:9 by Todd Beeton]:Speculation of a Gore endorsement of Obama is starting to spread. If indeed Obama's momentum has been stalled out of tonight, that could certainly restart it, although as we've learned, the electoral value of endorsements is uncertain at best. The Kennedys could not take Obama over the finish line in MA or CA but it was probably foolish to think that they could.

Update [2008-2-6 4:57:16 by Todd Beeton]:Speaking of the psychology of what exactly winning means, has anyone else watching MSNBC noticed that on the handy US maps with the states colored in according to where each candidate has won, MSNBC is including Michigan and Florida for Clinton? OK, so sure, yes literally she won them, but seems like they should be filled in with a different shade or something to indicate there's an asterisk next to those wins, because with MI & FL colored in, I have to say it sure looks like she's closer to having won a comparable area of the country to that which Obama gas won than she actually is. Not that area correlates to population or delegates bu psychologically, it's a powerful image seeing Clinton's and Obama's maps next to each other and with FL and MI colored in, you really have the sense that they're even; but if MI & FL weren't included, you would get a far different effect.

Tags: Barack Obama, Democratic nomination, Hillary Clinton, Super Tuesday (all tags)



Re: A Tie Goes To Clinton

I just hope this race ends soon (obviously in Clinton's favor). It wont' be good to have democrats criticizing each other while McCain gets the spotlight and the attacks all to himself.

by werd2406 2008-02-05 10:36PM | 0 recs
Re: A Tie Goes To Clinton

A tie goes to Clinton?

Even over on DailyKos, the predictions were that Obama would win between 7-9 states.

He won 13!!!  This is before New Mexico has even been projected, not to mention the potential disenfranchisement of independents in CA:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/2/5/1 63512/8990/51/450474

Keep on spinnin', but tonights results are even at best, and with Obama winning the tie as the underdog.

May the best Democrat win, and may that Democrat be Barack Obama!

by doschi 2008-02-05 11:00PM | 0 recs
Re: A Tie Goes To Clinton

Yeah, I thought that was just a little dubious, too.  With all due respect to Todd, his preference for Clinton is known, and I think it may be coloring his analysis in this case.

Sometimes a tie is just a tie.

Considering the fact that Obama was down 20 points 2 weeks ago, and considering all the stories about Obama "coming on strong" and some of the overheated expectations of an Obama upset in the last few days (thanks to polling data showing Obama coming on strong), I have to say this one's a draw.  I agree with Josh Marshall on this.

I will say this, though--and take it for what it's worth, coming from a "soft" Obama supporter: this morning, I've seen happy, energized reactions from Obama supporters.  By contrast, I've seen some pretty frustrated reactions from some Clinton supporters.

I'm not sure what that means, and maybe it's just anecdotal.  But there it is.

by jonweasel 2008-02-06 01:52AM | 0 recs
Re: A Tie Goes To Clinton

The reality is that states down the road do not look favorable for Hillary. It is not just that time is against her; it is that those states are not Clinton leaning overall, but it also a matter of time. The more time Obama gets to campaign, the more Democrats who will understand his message of change.

Hillary just simply represents the old way of doing politics: corporatism, K-Street lobbyists, Republican Lite (and triangulation), and simply put, a betrayal of Democratic principles as we saw in the 1990s. Bill Clinton changed Democratic principles as we know them and Hillary will continue that trend.

When a Democrat criticizes annother Democrat for supporting single payer universal health care, you know how far this party has come from its fundamental principles.

And Bill and Hillary Clinton are the culprits. Goodbye Republican Lite and goodbye Hillary.

by shergald 2008-02-06 08:08AM | 0 recs
Re: A Tie Goes To Clinton

As usual, Intrade provides an accurate benchmark of the conventional wisdom, and it has barely moved.  Maybe up a percent or two for Clinton since the start of the day.

The thing is that Obama is constantly gaining, gaining, gaining, getting all this momentum and everything, but at some point he actually needs to break through.  And half the states have already voted, including 4 of the 5 largest.  I'm sure he'll have a good February in terms of delegates but I don't see that translating into any sort of deal-clinching momentum.

by Steve M 2008-02-05 10:38PM | 0 recs
Re: A Tie Goes To Clinton

Yet gaining, gaining, gaining is a long way from losing.  Great changes are ratcheted up by inches, sometimes it takes a decade and we are witnessing it happening in little more than a year.

by Shaun Appleby 2008-02-05 11:08PM | 0 recs
Re: A Tie Goes To Clinton

You have a much different idea of what represents "great change" than I do.  Please don't buy into the notion that simply nominating this man makes the world change from black-and-white to color.  That said, my point is that we're too far into this thing to care about whether he's exceeded expectations by giving her a tough fight.  Results are what matter.

by Steve M 2008-02-06 05:04AM | 0 recs
Re: A Tie Goes To Clinton

Media frenzy gave Obama an advantage that was part of what moved him and helped get suprise wins.

In a fair race the media helps candidates with praise and then hurts them with expectations.

Hillary had praise pre Iowa and then the expectations from then to now and Obama got the lions share of the coverage without tough questions recently

Now there should be a reset or reversal.  Obama will lose some of his momentum when the media starts asking him about Rezco etc.

But then thats just assuming a fair media coverage.

by sonofdonkeykong 2008-02-05 10:41PM | 0 recs
Re: A Tie Goes To Clinton

good luck with that. MSNBC is just a Obama press release channel broken up by hours of prison documentaries and to catch a predator reruns.

by gomer 2008-02-05 10:48PM | 0 recs
Re: A Tie Goes To Clinton

Mr.Obama needs to admit exactly what happened with Rezco over the past 15 years.

Razco is scheduled to start trial Feb 25th in Chicago.
We don't need a mess like this to happen when the country is in such a mess and the Democratic Party looses this election.

by sweetpea 2008-02-06 11:24AM | 0 recs
Re: A Tie Goes To Clinton

No, a tie goes to the guy with rising numbers nation-wide(see gallup), a lead in earned delegates, and in number of states won, and finally, with a lineup that now could feature ten straight wins in caucus's or primaries.

You are supporting HRC and this is the spin they will favor,I am sure.
But the media is not about to declare any kind of winner when they know this was actually better than Obama's camp could have hoped for.
HRC did take CA. but the next couple of weeks she could lose all semblance of momentum. If Obama gets the next 4 weeks of wins ahead of Ohio and Texas..should be interesting.

by hawkjt 2008-02-05 10:42PM | 0 recs
Re: A Tie Goes To Clinton

Ah yes, cite them polls! We all know how they turned out ;)

by werd2406 2008-02-05 10:46PM | 0 recs
Re: A Tie Goes To Clinton

After watching them for the last twelve months?  We'll take it.  This day has so far exceeded the sum of anticipation and expectation of Obama's chances over this whole campaign.  Go look up some diaries from any time you care to choose before Iowa.

by Shaun Appleby 2008-02-05 11:11PM | 0 recs
Also, Obama started way down in polls

Given that, and the fact that he finished with 1-2% of the overall popular vote for the night and he split delegate counts evenly, Obama did astonishingly well (notwithstanding a fictitious and false expectation being created by BTD etal).

Just look at these polls (Obama in orange):



Even in GA, he was trailing:

Sure, it would have been great if he could replicate GA in CA, MA and NJ, as well, but he finished far closer than where he was in Dec/Jan in most of the Feb'5th states, and won a whole bunch of states spread across the country (including several mostly-white states), impressively.

by NeuvoLiberal 2008-02-06 12:35AM | 0 recs
Re: A Tie Goes To Clinton

gore should endorse obama and get it out of the way if he wants to.

by lori 2008-02-05 10:44PM | 0 recs
Re: A Tie Goes To Clinton

For some reason I think that Gore would be wise to stay out of this. His reputation and stature have grown precisely because he's dedicated himself to pure public service and removed himself from politics. If he were to come back in now, he'd annoy a lot of the people who support the other candidate, and would open himself to ridicule if his candidate lost in the primary, or anger if his candidate lost in the general.

by OrangeFur 2008-02-05 10:45PM | 0 recs
Re: A Tie Goes To Clinton

Yeah, I dont see the upside for Gore. Why endorse at this point? Plus, Obama has been talking a lot of poo about how the Clinton Administration didnt really help people.. I see Gore taking that personally. Sorta the flip side of the Kennedy problem with HRCs comments about LBJ civil rights legacy.

by hctb 2008-02-05 10:58PM | 0 recs
Re: A Tie Goes To Clinton

1. I coulda sworn Tucker actually said "which now looks more likely" or something along those lines (re: Obama getting the nomination).

2. Obama wins in a tie situation if he spins it correctly. And if your delegate estimates were correct and he won the pledged delegates for the day, he's the winner. And he may seem all the states up through the Chesapeake Primaries. If he does that, his momentum may be insurmountable.

3. I'm a little confused about people saying the Clinton campaign should spin it as she won the state that Democrats need. That doesn't make any sense. She won the states that, with the exception of Florida, will go Democrat anyway. Obama would win those in a GE. A primary is a totally different animal - you're competing within the party. Someone explain how such a narrative makes any sense.

by Cutwolf 2008-02-05 10:46PM | 0 recs
Re: A Tie Goes To Clinton

That must be some kool-aid you got there.

So would this Obama momentum that you describe as insurmountable be similiar to the Obama post-SC, Kennedy, Oprah, Shriver momentum that we just witness come up short in NJ, MASS and Cali?

" She won the states that, with the exception of Florida, will go Democrat anyway. Obama would win those in a GE." says you.

So that would include Ark, Tenn, Okla, Arz?  

Not like Obama's caucus wins in Kansas, Utah, Idaho, North Dakota, Alaska.  He's sure to win those as the nominee right?

And I suppose his wins in GA and AL mean he will win those in the general too right.

Clinton won the states we need to AND CAN pull over in the GE.  

by bdog 2008-02-05 11:01PM | 0 recs
Re: A Tie Goes To Clinton

You're not serious.  This is a vindication of his candidacy the likes of which was never expected by Her Honour and all her minions for longer than I care to remember.

by Shaun Appleby 2008-02-05 11:13PM | 0 recs
Re: A Tie Goes To Clinton

You're really not making much sense.

Tenn, Oklahoma, and Arizona wouldn't go Democrat with either of the candidates being the nominee. Even Arkansas isn't a guarantee with Hillary.

Neither would those states Obama won that you mentioned.

Obama would win NY, CA, Mass, NJ, etc in the general.

Clinton would win those states in the general as well.

So how does saying "clinton won states we need" make sense? She won them vs another Democrat in the primaries. Those big states are going to go for the Democratic candidate anyway.

by Cutwolf 2008-02-05 11:14PM | 0 recs
Re: A Tie Goes To Clinton

Ooh, NJ, right next to New York, and Massachusetts, full of racist white people?  (Obviously, Obama had some major endorsements in Massachusetts, but the demographics, were never particularly good for him, and it's not at all surprising that he lost, although the margin certainly isn't great for him).  Obama won Missouri, which is a serious bellwether state, and Connecticut, which everyone expected Clinton to win until a week ago.  He won all the western caucus states, and with huge majorities.  He won Utah, the whitest state in the country, and he may have won New Mexico.  California is obviously not great for Obama, although the size of the Clinton lead there is yet unclear, but certainly if he ends up with an overall pledged delegate lead, I don't see how one can spin this as a Clinton victory.  As I recall, going into today, the lines from the two camps were Clinton: whoever wins delegates, wins; and Obama: if we lose by less than 100 delegates, we win.  It looks like a lot closer to an even delegate split than to Clinton winning, so I don't see how this can possibly be spun as a Clinton win.

The rest of February favors Obama - he should win Nebraska, Washington, Maryland, D.C., Virginia, Hawaii, and probably Wisconsin, with Hillary only winning Maine.  That gives him serious momentum moving into March 4, even if Hillary has a strong advantage in Texas, and a decent one in Ohio.  (I think Vermont pretty clearly goes for Obama, and Rhode Island almost as clearly for Clinton, as far as the "tiny New England states" go on 3/4).

This wasn't quite as good as he might have done, but it was a pretty solid night for Obama, given that lots of people were predicting close to a 100 delegate lead for Clinton and her winning the majority of states tonight.

by jlk7e 2008-02-05 11:16PM | 0 recs
Re: A Tie Goes To Clinton

I also want to add that your attempts at spin are laughable.

You do realize how many states Obama was favored to win 2 weeks ago right? (Hint: 2)

You do realize how far Obama was behind in those 3 states, correct?

It's a delegate race. Obama didn't stand much of a chance at winning those states, but he siphoned off enough votes to make them important showings for him.

by Cutwolf 2008-02-05 11:17PM | 0 recs
Re: A Tie Goes To Clinton

Yeah I don't think Gore is looking to piss off half the democratic party..

by werd2406 2008-02-05 10:47PM | 0 recs
Re: A Tie Goes To Clinton

As an Obama supporter, I don't mind a reset. The next few contests favor Obama.

I don't really have the impression that Obama came up short of expectations, at all. Recall your "Primary Moon" diary from earlier, which only showed Obama favored (according to polls) in four states. He won 13 (with NM added later, possibly). Not bad at all. He won Missouri and Connecticut were certainly surprises.

It also seems rather plain that much of Clinton victory in CA came from early voting (most of which would have preceeded any Obama surge). This seemed to be reflected in some of CNN's coverage of the CA returns.

I mean, really, Hillary's expectations all along have been to come out of Super Tuesday with the advantage. It didn't happen. She's been the front-runner in national polls forever. Those days are over, it seems. I'd say this is all good news for Obama, who--as I said--is looking forward to some favorable contests.

by DPW 2008-02-05 10:48PM | 0 recs
Re: A Tie Goes To Clinton

Exactly, short memories invite simple spin.

by Shaun Appleby 2008-02-05 11:14PM | 0 recs
Re: A Tie Goes To Clinton

I'm sorry, but Hillary won the true primaries (where people get to vote all day) and Obama won caucuses, which are glorified pep-fests. Hillary went 8-6 in real primaries.

I doubt, seriously, that winning N. Dakota or Utah or other small state caucuses with skimpy turnout is going to persuade any lifelong Democrats that Obama actually "won" them.

Hillary won five of the six biggest states on Tuesday, and the one Obama carried was his home state.

If he's such a momentum candidate, why can't he wash Hillary away? She is one strong woman, one strong candidate and will be a terrific Commander in Chief.

by politicalpuck 2008-02-07 02:59AM | 0 recs
Re: A Tie Goes To Clinton

Why does a tie go to Clinton? Obama seems to be the one who made up huge ground in a couple weeks and has the momentum. Your narrative doesn't reflect the title of your post. Shouldn't the title be something like, "Super Tuesday Equivalent of Reset Button." Remember, blogs help set the media tone as well, not just the TV pundits.

by thirdeye99 2008-02-05 10:49PM | 0 recs
I think..

I think both camps tonight will take this day as a "eh". Both had something to be quite happy about and both had something they could've improved on. I don't see any real movement to any camp based on this day alone.

by werd2406 2008-02-05 10:51PM | 0 recs
Re: A Tie Goes To Clinton

Obama has lots of time, more money, and the rest of the calendar leans his way. He's weak with latinos and machine politics states, but most of those states are done. He's smiling tonight.

by oyo 2008-02-05 10:54PM | 0 recs
Re: A Tie Goes To Clinton

How much were you paid to write this garbage?  Obama kicked her ass.  Obama won more states.  Obama won more delegates, (non-super) and you say this goes to Clinton?  You are a joke.  You are seriously threatening to screw up the rest of your career because you are quickly being found to not be credible.

by Todd Bennett 2008-02-05 10:59PM | 0 recs
Re: A Tie Goes To Clinton

"Not credible" is a good description of people who claim that a Clinton insider told them all about Hillary's secret plan to win the election by sending out Muslim smear e-mails.

by Steve M 2008-02-05 11:05PM | 0 recs
Re: A Tie Goes To Clinton

You are a sore loser jack-off.  Fuck you and the pity party you sponsor.  The bitch's smear did not work.  And yes I mean that.  OBAMA KICKED HER ASS!

by Todd Bennett 2008-02-05 11:31PM | 0 recs
Re: A Tie Goes To Clinton

Get a grip, mate.  You've changed sides thrice so far and contributed what to whom?  Steve doesn't deserve that.

by Shaun Appleby 2008-02-05 11:34PM | 0 recs
Re: A Tie Goes To Clinton

I was so glad he gave up on Hillary.

by souvarine 2008-02-06 07:57AM | 0 recs
Re: A Tie Goes To Clinton

Uh... there are some fairly formidable machines (i think this is code for blue collar voters who do not support Obama) in OH & PA.

by hctb 2008-02-05 11:01PM | 0 recs
Re: A Tie Goes To Clinton

I guess Latinos can be added to the list of machine politics.

Speaking of which, Obama as the general candidate will represent big problems with latinos, the fastest growing minority and key segement needed to win.  He has a BIG latino problem and his being nominated would drive many of those important voters to McCain, and a bunch of states with them.

by bdog 2008-02-05 11:03PM | 0 recs
Re: A Tie Goes To Clinton

In addition to his big Latino/a problem, Obama also has a big Asian American problem, a big gay problem, a big blue collar Democrat problem, and massive female problem.

Uh...with the exception of African Americans and the latte drinking liberals, that's the entire Democratic base.

He does have the beltway punditocracy.

by hwc 2008-02-05 11:45PM | 0 recs
Re: A Tie Goes To Clinton

Sour grapes of wrath?  C'mon HWC you've been at this too long to go bitter now.  A draw is a win for whom?  Do you remember the disdain with which you used to refer to Super Tuesday in respect of Obama's chances?  The contemptuous superiority of Hillary's inevitability?  I do.

by Shaun Appleby 2008-02-05 11:48PM | 0 recs
Re: A Tie Goes To Clinton

There are no winners for the Democratic Party in 2008.

by hwc 2008-02-06 12:08AM | 0 recs
Re: A Tie Goes To Clinton

Pshaw.  We are going to cream them.  This is our best chance in decades.  Your candidate or mine we are going to win.

by Shaun Appleby 2008-02-06 12:44AM | 0 recs
go bitter?

hwc has been bitter since NH if I recall correctly.

by souvarine 2008-02-06 07:59AM | 0 recs
Re: A Tie Goes To Clinton

Also I hear he has problems with the Jewish community. Their numbers arent big they bring clout and wealthy donors.

by Safe at Home 2008-02-06 12:47AM | 0 recs
Re: A Tie Goes To Clinton

Another reading on how things are going for Clinton and Obama, respectively.

Debates are, of course, the classic tool that challengers always demand when they feel that they need to make up ground, and can't expect to make it up otherwise.  

Who took time out in the middle of the day to demand more debates, including a debate on the previously-hated Fox?  (Hint:  It wasn't Obama.)  That speaks volumes about where Hillary Clinton believes that she is right now, and where she expects to be in a week or two.

(Note:  None of this discounts the very real fact that either of the two of them can win.  But in terms of who feels like they're in the driver's seat and who's trying to grab the wheel, look at the facts about the upcoming contests and what the candidates are doing.)

by Bluebeard 2008-02-05 11:01PM | 0 recs
Re: A Tie Goes To Clinton

I dont buy this. Clinton would demand debates no matter where she was.. why? BC it is the place where she does her best and is able to manage the media story toward policy where she does well.

On to the next talking point.

by hctb 2008-02-05 11:08PM | 0 recs
Re: A Tie Goes To Clinton

Why do you  keep saying Obama won more candidates?

Right now on CNN it is:

Hillary 547 vs Obama 553

This doesn't include California which Hillary is leading by 10% (37 delegates)

When California delegates are in: Hillary should be up.

Don't count your chickens just yet.

by comebackkid 2008-02-05 11:02PM | 0 recs
Re: A Tie Goes To Clinton

I too wonder where all these Obama folks are getting the "we wont more delegates" claim...

by werd2406 2008-02-05 11:06PM | 0 recs
Re: A Tie Goes To Clinton

They only say it because it's true.  Obama has won more delegates than Clinton.

She only leads slightly when you count the non-binding expressions of preference by superdelegates,  who can change their votes at a whim, and the vast majority of whom have not even expressed a preference yet.

Obama had won 15 more delegates than Clinton before Super Tuesday.  On Super Tuesday he won something like 4 to 10 delegates more than her.  


"By our estimates, he picked up 840 to 849 delegates versus 829-838 for Clinton; the Obama camp projects winning by nine delegates (845-836)."

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2 008/02/06/642567.aspx


by Bluebeard 2008-02-06 08:49AM | 0 recs
Re: A Tie Goes To Clinton

And here's a link from Time.com showing exactly the same thing.

http://thepage.time.com/obama-delegate-c ount/

by Bluebeard 2008-02-06 09:16AM | 0 recs
Re: A Tie Goes To Clinton

Anyone who thinks Obama is going to win the nomination is just not facing reality. As of now, Hillary has NY, MA, NJ, and CA among her wins, not to mention MI and FL should the be seated, please the likelihood of PA, OH and TX going into the win column for her. We're talking just about every major state in the union with the largest population centers.

Since the Dem vote count in FL exceeded the GOP count, and OH likely to do the same, Hillary is in great shape to win the 2008 election overall.

On the other hand, expecting Obama to do the same, especially if his opponent is McCain, is a leap too far that most Dems are not too anxious to make. The sad fact is that both Asians and Hispanics are not going to vote for Obama out west over McCain.

The party elders are going to look at the Hispanic vote alone and come to the decision that the best Obama can now hope for is VP, and even that I wouldn't call a done deal. My guess is she goes for Wes Clark, or - if necessary - a black candidate other than Obama. (A bold stroke would be Colin Powell, who'd get a shot at redemption in the process.)

Bottom line: Dem states like CA and NY are in play if it's McCain/Obama, whereas Hillary thrashes McCain with states Clinton, Gore and Kerry won plus OH and/or FL at a minimum.

by SoCalHillMan 2008-02-05 11:08PM | 0 recs
Re: A Tie Goes To Clinton

Okay. that is kool-aid I want to drink-- Dems convincing Powell into a VP Nom. pass it over here.

by hctb 2008-02-05 11:12PM | 0 recs
Re: A Tie Goes To Clinton

Believe what you want to believe.  Yikes, this place has gone to pot.

by thurst 2008-02-05 11:14PM | 0 recs
Re: A Tie Goes To Clinton

Wow, SoCalHillMan, you are deluding yourself. Obama will swamp McCain in California, New York and all the other blue states. No one seriously believes Calif. and NY are in play.

If you're honest, you'd acknowledge that.

- Northern California Dem

by JD Lasica 2008-02-06 07:45PM | 0 recs
Re: A Tie Goes To Clinton

>Right now on CNN it is:
>Hillary 547 vs Obama 553

Huh? I'm looking at it right now and it says -
Clinton: 740
Obama: 659

by thirdeye99 2008-02-05 11:09PM | 0 recs
Re: A Tie Goes To Clinton

They are including super delegates in your count thirdeye

by werd2406 2008-02-05 11:11PM | 0 recs
Re: A Tie Goes To Clinton

That includes super-delegates.

Obama people have been saying that Obama won more delegates on Super Tuesday.  Currently he has 6 more, but Hillary will be getting +30 when California is counted.

Looks like Hillary will be 100+ delegates ahead of Obama if including super delegates.

by comebackkid 2008-02-05 11:14PM | 0 recs
I don't think they should include superdelegates

for superdelegates can flip at anytime.

by puma 2008-02-06 12:35AM | 0 recs
Re: A Tie Goes To Clinton

I've read multiple accounts that said it was 845-836 for Obama for Super Tuesday.  Hardly worth bragging about, but he did win more pledged deleagtes.  I think when different media outlets use the superdelegate counts, and other don't that has the tendency to confuse people.  They should just use pledged delegates, and then talk about superdelegates separately.

by Chili Dogg 2008-02-06 06:56PM | 0 recs
Re: A Tie Goes To Clinton

The tie goes to Clinton because the media and the Obama campaign made it seem like he would win California- the press they gave to the Kennedies was ridiculous, not to mention Oprah running down here, as well as the pundits talking about how Ted would get Obama many latino votes.  And again, like in New Hampshire, the polls were saying she was going to lose there but didn't.  There were people here on MyDD who bitched and bitched today at the Clinton supporters that they refused to accept what the polls were saying- that Obama was going to win California.  So Clinton winning California is now a surprise.  California is a huge prize- if Clinton had 14 states but lost California to Obama, her campaign would be in deep trouble even if she had gotten most of the states.  Clinton's win was not just against Obama, it was against Obama, Michelle, Oprah, Ted Kennedy, John Kerry and Maria Shriver so it's much more impressive.  It's amazing how much she was up against and still won- and her taking Mass. makes it that much sweeter.  The big news is that she triumphed over the Kennedies, who used every means at their disposal to try to get her to lose, trotting out Kennedy after Kennedy to keep the news going.  Ted was right about passing the torch- the power of the Kennedy clan has now proven to be pretty worthless and it's their "time," their "era," not Hillary's, that's "over."

by reasonwarrior 2008-02-05 11:12PM | 0 recs
Re: A Tie Goes To Clinton

An...um, tie goes to Clinton?  Really?  Have you guys lost ALL sense of perspective??!  Every prognostication had Obama losing delegates, losing more states.  He apparently won more delegates against all odds and won either 13 or 14 states when he was expected (even at the supposedly kool-aid drinking kos) to win roughly 7-9...and Clinton won the night??!  Um, ok.  MyDD used to be a relevant, even-handed site where I looked forward to going to see an analysis of the numbers.  Why the hell it has become an obsessive fanboy site of Clinton is beyond me.  It's depressing.  I'm sorry...I tried not to say a thing, but this is beyond the pale.  At best, no one won.  Realistically, it seems clear Obama scored a victory.  I don't have a goddamned horse, but come back to earth and start being a site that I can come to for honest information.  Yeesh!

by thurst 2008-02-05 11:12PM | 0 recs
Re: A Tie Goes To Clinton

CA isn't done yet...again, i dont know why Obama fans are claiming they won the delegate count.

by werd2406 2008-02-05 11:14PM | 0 recs
Re: A Tie Goes To Clinton

"At best, no one won.  Realistically, it seems clear Obama scored a victory."

Crazy much?

by comebackkid 2008-02-05 11:15PM | 0 recs
Re: A Tie Goes To Clinton

Nope he's just 100% right.  

by yitbos96bb 2008-02-06 01:46AM | 0 recs
Re: A Tie Goes To Clinton

"MyDD used to be a relevant, even-handed site where I looked forward to going to see an analysis of the numbers.  Why the hell it has become an obsessive fanboy site of Clinton is beyond me.  It's depressing."

Well said.  I used to think that MyDD was a great resource, but this one-sided boosterism really insults my intelligence. Why not present the info and let the reader figure it out on their own?  

I thought this site was once about building a new Democratic majority, but you're steering it toward irrelevance.

by wonderama 2008-02-06 10:56AM | 0 recs
Re: A Tie Goes To Clinton

I think we may be looking at Clinton trying to pull the Giuliani. Retreating to Ohio/Texas - states more favorable to her - and conceding the other states. However, if Obama wins these upcoming primaries decisively, I expect a few things:

1. Gore endorsement to unite the party behind one candidate

  1. Edwards endorsement to unite the party behind one candidate
  2. Obamamentum to be too much to overcome.

Obama is moving the bulk of his force to Ohio as we speak, including his top man on the ground who helped him win Iowa.

What does this all mean? If Hillary retreats to a favorable state and spends all her time there like Giuliani did with Florida, I expect the same outcome.

Washington - Obama
Nebraska - Obama
Louisiana - Obama (as a student at LSU, I plan to get as many of my friends out to vote as possible; my roommates are going to vote for Obama just so I stop bugging them about it; I'm also hoping Obama comes to LSU but he'll probably go to piece of shit Tulane)

Maine - Obama. If Clinton only led by 17 a year ago, Obama wins this state. A year ago, Clinton led most places by 30+.

DC - Obama
Maryland - Obama
Virginia - Obama (race isn't an issue; Virginia elected the first black governor in the US, a fact that help Obama)

Hawaii - Obama
Wisconsin - Obama due to its proximity to Illinois


Do you really think Clinton stands a chance if Obama reels off 9 straight victories?

And even if Clinton wins those states, she will not win them by a large enough margin to propel her into the lead.

by Cutwolf 2008-02-05 11:18PM | 0 recs
Re: A Tie Goes To Clinton

Damn, you really has some big dreams there dont you? Why not add jesus christ himself to come down and endorse obama too...or are they one of the same, i can never tell now ;)

anyway, edwards and gore see the same numbers we do and i know they see a latino/other minorities problem with obama and know that if he wins the nom, we're actually in some deep shit. so even if, IF, they want to support obama, i doubt they would

by werd2406 2008-02-05 11:27PM | 0 recs
Re: A Tie Goes To Clinton

All the numbers I've seen show Obama running stronger against McCain than Hillary does.

So, we agree, then. May the most formidable candidate against the GOP win.

Obama-Bill Richardson would solve those Latino problems.

But really, the Latino problem is overstated here. McCain's chief talking point now is "secure the borders" before any immigration reform. Hard to see what states McCain would bring to the GOP column due to the Latino factor.

by JD Lasica 2008-02-06 07:53PM | 0 recs
Re: A Tie Goes To Clinton

1. I dont think a Gore or Edwards endorsement unites anything.

2. MI ^ FL will be dealt with and that can only be damage control for Obama in a delegate race.

3. WI is no slam dunk for Obama. Clinton can keep it close in VA if her ground operation works at it.

4. TX is a blow out for Clinton if Hispanic voters do not change their mids in LARGE numbers.

5. OH is NOT IA. A group operation in a small state for a CAUCUS does not translate into winning this behemoth of a state.

by hctb 2008-02-05 11:31PM | 0 recs
Re: A Tie Goes To Clinton

If Gore endorses Obama, I will never forgive him.  Where's his loyalty?  If Bill has not chosen him as VP,  he never could have springboarded to the Dem nomination in 2000, and although he lost, his high profile during that time has helped him spread his "global warming" message around the world.  People might scoff and say it's because of Bill that Gore lost the 2000 election, but I say that's bull.  Before he became a "darling" of today, many people couldn't stand him.  I don't know how many people I fought with about Gore but there was a big dislike for him- he's "boring," "I can't stand listening to him talk,""He's a phony""I just don't like him for some reason."  He never would have won the Dem nomination unless he had been Vice-President all those years.  Stabbing them in the back is incredibly ungrateful- Gore would have been only marginally known if it wasn't for the Clintons.

by reasonwarrior 2008-02-05 11:34PM | 0 recs
Re: A Tie Goes To Clinton


by Shaun Appleby 2008-02-05 11:36PM | 0 recs
The Clintons owe Gore, not the other way around

Gore helped put Clinton in the whitehouse with stumps like this, brought foreign policy expertise (which Clinton sorely lacked) to undo Bush Sr on his main strength as well as his experience/exposure to the national economy where Clinton wasn't strong. Gore's clean image also offset (esp. so in the south, which was important because Bush Sr was also from the south) Clinton's image which already suffering from Gennifer Flowers and other scandals. Editorials around the country praised the choice, and that momentum helped Clinton take the lead in the race for the first time (and they kept it till election day). It can be argued that Gore was one of the most instrumental factors behind Clinton's victory.

Gore then worked his ass off to help make possible several good results their administration had, despite the games that Hillary tried to play to grab power she wasn't elected to have (and failed with her biggest project, healthcare reform, anyhow).

But, Clinton repaid that debt by having a sex affair (knowing fully well that the rightwing was looking under every stone to bury the Clintons and Gore), and positively harmed Gore in 2000 in a myriad ways, including handicapping Gore to severe double digit deficits. Gore fought back to win the popular vote and the general election despite that and media smears (like the ones you've mentioned above) and a potent Nader factor.

Further, in 1988, as a 39 year old candidate, Gore won several southern states and millions of votes. Had he not accepted the VP offer, focused his efforts on environmental matters (as a continuation of his book "The Earth in the balance") and ran in 1996 or 2000 on his own, he would have had an excellent shot at winning the nomination (his rivals would have been Kerrey, Kerry, Bradley etc. Not exactly an unbeatable bunch for a much more experienced and mature Gore than the 39 year old in 1988) and then the general.

Some strange things happened in 2000 as well, such as:

  1. Moynihan (a major promoter of HRC's run for NY-Sen) and Ed Koch (a strong supporter of HRC for her senate runs and now the pres. race) both endorsed Bradley over Gore.
  2. Gore felt the need to fire Mark Penn, who was also working on HRC's senate run for somewhat mysterious reasons.
And, in the FL recount, the establishment (which was under Clintons' control) wasn't very helpful to Gore; in fact, the then DNC chair, Ed Rendell (a Clinton supporter) publicly called on Gore to concede (he didn't need to do that publicly).

After 2000, Gore bucked the tide and worked his ass off to make global warming a politically beneficial and relevant issue (in addition to excoriating the Bush/Cheney admin on rogue ways such as the war, when the Clintons were busy enabling Bush on those matters. People like Gore, Dean, Feingold, Conyers etc protected the Democratic brand by standing up for the "right thing"), which is now helping HRC, helped Democrats in 2006 midterms and will likely do so in November as well.

Given all this, it's the Clintons that owe Gore big time, not the other way around.

Gore helped and stood up for his partner Clinton (yes, Gore supported Clinton strongly over impeachment), stuck up for his party, his country and his planet.

The Clintons have always been and still continue to be all about the Clintons.

by NeuvoLiberal 2008-02-06 12:14AM | 0 recs
If anyone is paying attention

Obama's actual policies stacked up against Hillary are less progressive and people are going to start to pay attention to that.

Now I don't like either of them because both have promised to enable global labor arbitrage on steroids, although Clinton I noticed is starting some campaign rhetoric at least acknowledging these issues.  Now if she actually delivers for working America instead of these corporate lobbyists and special interests is yet to be seen, but she's acknowledging it and Obama so far has been denying it even exists.  In her speech this evening she even alluded to one of the common experiences with professionals where they have to train their cheap labor replacement before being fired.  

Also, Hillary isn't Bill and I think that's finally dawning on people.  

I want the most overall Progressive economic positions I can find and believe me, I'm still not happy, but frankly a lot of economists surrounding the Clinton camp are also waking up to their past follies so that will help, she's talking about changes to trade agreements, Obama seems to think it's just an enforcement issue and it's not.  
It's the agreements themselves and they need to be renegotiated.  

by Robert Oak 2008-02-05 11:21PM | 0 recs
Re: If anyone is paying attention

Actually you will find they aren't and you are wrong... but thanks for trying.

by yitbos96bb 2008-02-06 01:44AM | 0 recs
Re: A Tie Goes To Clinton

Virginia elected the first black governor in the US

I believe P. B. S. Pinchback, of Louisiana, was the first black governor, from 1872-1873.

Beyond that, a ties goes to Clinton?  That's ridiculous.  Her own camp's spin going into today was "whoever wins wins".  It's unclear who wins in pledged delegates today, but it'd going to be really close, and if Obama wins, that's pretty hard to spin as a "tie going for Clinton," especially given the schedule for the rest of the month.  Even if Clinton wins by a narrow margin, that's still rather better for Obama than anyone would have predicted a week ago, even after Edwards dropped out.

by jlk7e 2008-02-05 11:31PM | 0 recs
Re: A Tie Goes To Clinton

The biggest losers tonight:

Ted Kennedy
John Kerry

They ran their mouths for the last two weeks, trashing the Clintons, complaining that Bill was hurting the Democrats. And, these two losers (who have never backed a winning Democratic contender in their lives) threw a rod in their own home state.


Big splashy rally in California to woo the women's vote. Last exit poll I saw showed Clinton beating their boy 59% to 34% among California women.

Janet Napoletano

Her endorsement resulted in a 9 point loss in Arizona for Mr. Bamboozle.

Claire McCaskill

Smug. Smug. Smug. Was happy to have Bill Clinton host a $1 million fundraiser and then turn around two weeks later on Meet the Press and say that she wouldn't trust her daughter in the same room as Bill Clinton. How'd she do? Battled to a draw, but only after having to wait to see how many more ballots she needed from St. Louis.

All in all, I'd say that putting political capital on the the line for Mr. Okie Doke may not be such a great strategy. We'll see if there a line forming to endorse Mr. Hoodwink.

by hwc 2008-02-05 11:36PM | 0 recs
Re: A Tie Goes To Clinton

A tie goes to Clintons?  In the '90's maybe.  Today, not so much.

by Shaun Appleby 2008-02-05 11:37PM | 0 recs
Re: A Tie Goes To Clinton

Have you noticed Bill's ties lately?  Hard to miss.

by Shaun Appleby 2008-02-05 11:38PM | 0 recs
Come On, Todd

Nice try at spin. It doesn't flatter you.

Here's the real question: what are the plausible roadmaps to the nomination for both candidates now?

by BBCWatcher 2008-02-05 11:49PM | 0 recs
Re: A Tie Goes To Clinton

The Kennedys could not take Obama over the finish line in MA or CA but it was probably foolish to think that they could.

Maybe so. But, the pundits can't have it both ways. They can't shove Ted Kennedy down our throats for two weeks as God's gift to political blessings and then turn around and dismiss it when Kennedy rolls snake eyes in his own home state. And, we shouldn't allow them off the hook.

The media built up Kennedy's endorsement. Now, they have to own up to the voters of Masschusetts giving Kennedy and Obama the collective finger...by fifteen points.

On the bright side, the Kennedy/Obama ticket did carry Edgartown and nearby islands.

by hwc 2008-02-06 12:27AM | 0 recs

Obama is the underdog NOT Clinton.  A tie means a WIN for Obama...duh.

Obama was NOT suppose to win more states or stay within 100 delegates after this is over.  He EXCEEDED his expectations not less.

How can that be a WIN for Hillary especially now with Obama having more money left over and the states that are coming up soon.

by puma 2008-02-06 12:34AM | 0 recs
Re: What?

Obama has had "momentum" and positive media coverage since Jan 3rd (at least). I think we can stop calling him an underdog and Hillary a huge favourite. It is close, to suggest that polls that had Hillary up by 30 in November and December should be the benchmark for her is somewhat silly

by Wiseprince 2008-02-06 05:24AM | 0 recs
Re: A Tie Goes To Clinton

NeuvoLiberal - great post on the Clintons owing Gore, not the other way around. It probably deserves its own diary, not just a comment buried amongst others.

by thirdeye99 2008-02-06 01:19AM | 0 recs
Re: A Tie Goes To Clinton

Gee the Clinton supporter thinks Clinton won.  Sorry Todd, but your dead wrong on this one.

by yitbos96bb 2008-02-06 01:42AM | 0 recs
Re: A Tie Goes To Clinton

"I have to say it sure looks like she's closer to having won a comparable area of the country to that which Obama gas won than she actually is. Not that area correlates to population or delegates bu psychologically, it's a powerful image seeing Clinton's and Obama's maps next to each other and with FL and MI colored in, you really have the sense that they're even; but if MI & FL weren't included, you would get a far different effect."

I really have to say that this is a bit tiring.

This sounds so much like the red-blue maps, those showing red and blue nationwide by county, that made it appear that Bush had beaten Gore 98-2.

Several of those monstrosities were emailed to me by gloating Republican Schmucks. My response was that tumble weed and prairie dogs don't count.

So I have to say that lamenting the fact that Michigan and Florida are colored in on Clinton's map and making the comparison in terms of geography reminds me all too much of those Bush vs Gore maps. That square miles somehow count more than people and Obama won more square miles so it's really really awful to include those states that don't count on Clinton's side because it minimizes Obama's square mile victory.

Given everything I've read in this series of posts, I would wager that if Obama had won Michigan and Florida that there would be an ongoing continuous howl of protest that Michigan and Florida were unfairly excluded and every conceivable rationale would be employed to "prove" that those votes should be counted.

I believe that arguments would include the unfair disenfranchisement of people who cared enough to get out and vote, that the DNC was foolish to zero out the delegates of the 4th and 8th largest states in the union, etc.

But of course Hillary Clinton won those states and they should therefore be stricken from the map, their inclusion degrades Obama's square mile triumph.

But, the fact is that Clinton did win those states, with 55% and 50% of vote and 2.2 million people did bother to go out and vote.  If 2.2 million people got out and voted even though they knew that their votes would yield no delegates; I believe it indicates that they felt strongly about expressing their choice and deserve to be recognized, at the very least, on some network's map.

by cal1942 2008-02-06 02:01AM | 0 recs
Obama wins. Period

I'm sorry maybe this is spinning so a potential ugly credentials fight might seem less unfair as HRC tries to drag a superdelegate win out of this. But she has lost.

I'm sorry Todd this isn't going to happen, big big night for Obama as anyone can see. The great majority of remaining states are delegate farms for Obama. Much like the seven or so states that Obama crushed with 60 and 70% of the vote.

In terms of endorsements: they will start to come now to let the Clinton team know that its over and they shouldn't fight so much and divide the party.

It will be Edwards, Gore etc. in the coming days, maybe hours, to start the unification around the presumptive candidate. Barack Obama.

It's very exciting, as I said yesterday, I can't wait to see who his VP is. (Gore? Edwards? Boxer? It won't be Clinton.)

by inexile 2008-02-06 02:04AM | 0 recs
Nope, tie goes to Obama


by Teaser 2008-02-06 03:12AM | 0 recs
Re: A Tie Goes To Clinton

Ridiculous.  In the predictions, almost everyone had Clinton winning more ST delegates - the issue was whether it would be over 100 (making it almost impossible for Obama to come back, even with advantages in the upcoming contests).  The only "expectations" Obama fell short of were any irrational ones based on exit polls.  Most of us have learned not to drink that Kool Aid.

For the first time since NH, I feel like Obama has an even shot to win this thing.  I suspect others feel this way too, and we'll see a re-doubling of mydd efforts to piss all over Obama.  But I'll keep fighting the good fight, and open up my wallet again.

by NC State Dem 2008-02-06 03:42AM | 0 recs
Re: A Tie Goes To Clinton

Ah leave it to MYDD to claim a Clinton victory when no such thing exists.

by Socks The Cat 2008-02-06 04:04AM | 0 recs
Re: A Tie Goes To Clinton

  "If people want change so much, why isn't Obama winning by a great margin."

That proves nothing.  The fact is, people who are voting in these primaries seem to be more conservative than the public at large.  And yes that includes women and Hispanics.

by demjim 2008-02-06 05:27AM | 0 recs
Re: A Tie Goes To Clinton

Weird.  I remember sitting around, shooting the s*** with a certain unnamed blogger a few weeks ago (who favors Obama, as do I), and we both looked at Super Tuesday as Obama's death knell; said blogger put the odds of Obama SURVIVING Super Tuesday as less than even.  It seems to me that the very fact that Obama has transformed the Democratic primary into something more than a rubber stamp for Clinton is something in and of itself.  I don't claim to know what will happen over the next few months, but after Gore and Kerry, I am proud to have a candidate who actually inspires me, who isn't merely the better choice.  When I listen to the cadence and content of Obama's speeches, I understand what it must have been like to listen to Roosevelt, Churchill, and Kennedy; how many Clinton supporters can say that?

If it is true, as many have claimed, that there is little substantive difference between the two candidates, then it seems to me that the more electable one is the one who is better able to convey his or her ideas to a target audience.  Although this may seem like a soft rationale for supporting a candidate, Richard Neustadt, the seminal student of the presidency, sums up the true presidential imperative as the "power to persuade."

So far, Clinton's audience seems to be four sets of people: those who want more than anything else to see a woman president (for some reason not as widely pondered as Obama's tendency to attract the African-American vote), those who are afraid that Obama will get wiped in a general election (certainly not supported by polling), those who are afraid that Obama will not be "ready on day one" (odd, since he actually has more legislative experience than she does), and those who think that Clinton will basically have a co-presidency with her husband (who I am told accomplished something in the Oval Office).

I can't really speak to those who would vote for her BECAUSE she's a woman, nor to those who haven't yet figured out that the greatness of the nineties was in large part due to the circumstances of history and not Bill Clinton (the confluence of the end of the Cold War, the rise of grunge, and the apogee of Amy Heckerling was amazing), I have very little to say.  You know who you want.  But to the other two camps, who are AFRAID to support Obama, I leave you with this: "[You] have nothing to fear but fear itself."

by carloseljefe 2008-02-06 05:33AM | 0 recs
Re: A Tie Goes To Clinton

No matter which way you slice it, the title of this thread is wrong. There was no tie. Obama won more states and more delegates last night (haven't seen a popular vote breakdown on Super Tuesday yet--anybody else seen it?). and the upcoming schedule features 9 consecutive states (including DC) where Obama should be considered the favorite. So by the time we get to Ohio and Texas, where Hilary is currently favored, the narrative will all be about Obama's winning streak and delegate lead. But even the premise that the "tie" (if you could really call it that) goes to Clinton is sketchy. It seems to me that what he needed to do last night was show the nation as a whole that he was on equal footing with her, the prohibitive favorite coming in and once he does that he has slayed the dragon as Maureen Dowd says. The titel of this thread is some wishful whistling past the graveyard by the Clinton spin machine.

by wasder 2008-02-06 06:12AM | 0 recs
Re: A Tie Goes To Clinton

and let me add that the Intrade market has swung to Obama this morning, another indicator that as this thing settles out Obama will be judged the "winner" of Super Tuesday.

by wasder 2008-02-06 06:13AM | 0 recs
Re: A Tie Goes To Clinton

I don't think the progressive blogs reflect what is going on in the country much at all. It really is kind of an Obama echo chamber. It was weird that he took all these red states like Utah, Kansas, Alaska, Idaho, states where the Democratic populace is so beaten down by loss after loss that his message of "hope" must resonate somehow. And caucus states, where social pressure influences the vote. Interesting.

But you can see who the hard core Dems are endorsing, and it's quite obviously Clinton. And the base comprises a lot more than males between the ages of 18-40, a group which I assume is 80% of blog commenters. No wonder you guys keep scratching your heads. Women and Hispanics are winning this thing for her, and sending Maria and Caroline and Oprah out to "give women permission" to vote for Obama would be a very funny joke, if it weren't so silly and condescending.

No, I think she'll take the nomination. After last night I feel pretty confident of that. Anybody who can endure the media hate that she has, and still come out like this is a real fighter. It hit me last night: she's going to win. And she's doing it without the support of progressive media or glamorous endorsements or cool Youtube videos. Heh. Imagine that.  

by cc 2008-02-06 06:41AM | 0 recs
Re: A Tie Goes To Clinton

I agree that last night hit the reset button, but I don't see how a reset means a Clinton win. If you look at the CW-reflecting Intrade over the last day, Clinton's actually dropped to 50% from about 56% going in to Super Tuesday. That's a reset; since they're 50-50 now, but since Clinton was ahead, things have gotten worse for her. The New Hampshire reset was the opposite (but moreso)- Obama was ahead, CW-wise, and then with the 'reset' fell to slightly worse than a tie.

Anyway, I just don't see it. Usually I respect your election analysis, but I think I'll just have to chalk this one up to bleary-eyed confirmation bias, given your recent decision to support Hillary.

by seand 2008-02-06 07:23AM | 0 recs
Re: A Tie Goes To Clinton

Yeah, I don't buy this at all.  Just a few days ago, expectations were that Obama would win single-digits and would try to keep himself within 200 or so delegates and make it up in the rest of the races.  The fact that he's basically pulled near even and won several more states than originally considered shows he's more viable now around the country (winning at least a state in every piece of the country), and, other than an unprecedented blow-out (that I think Obama supporters were probably unrealistically hoping for), this is about as much damage as Obama could've done against Clinton at this point in time.

Anything could still happen, but with a potentially friendly few weeks for Obama and the media narrative seeming to be that it was a "split" for the democrats (essentially putting Obama as an equal candidate to Clinton), Obama is much better positioned now than he was pre-Feb 5 to win this thing.  And if that's actually the case, that means the "tie" goes to Obama.

by leshrac55 2008-02-06 07:48AM | 0 recs
Re: A Tie Goes To Clinton

I don't see how a tie goes to Clinton given her "inevitable" status less than two months ago.  Obama essentially tied HRC in the popular vote; won more states and appears to have won more delegates.  How is that a Clinton win?  I understand that is the way she will spin it but it seems to me that a draw, given how far back Obama started from, really means he won and won BIG.  

by iowabetty 2008-02-06 07:50AM | 0 recs
Re: A Tie Goes To Clinton

The corporate media and conservative Democrats want Obama because he will compromise and not be mean to the Republican minority. He might even give them a few cabinet appointments. But Clinton will appoint all Democrats and try to push thru a Democratic agenda. The media and their high paid friends won't have a seat at the table when it comes to energy policy and health care policy. And maybe just maybe those military generals can sway and control the new kid, not so with Hillary who knows her stuff and will know it on DAY ONE. She won't need an ear piece with Ted Kennedy or John Kerry who endorsed Obama because they know they will be irrelevant in a new Clinton Administration but Obama will need their counsel lol

by rossinatl 2008-02-06 08:37AM | 0 recs
Re: A Tie Goes To Clinton


I think many of you may be young, very emotionally involved with Obama's campaign, a bit nearsighted, and lacking a little perpective on the big picture here.

I am no Obama fan. Yet, it is quite clear to me now, unless the Clintons can pull something out of a hat, Obama will win this nomination. Don't get me wrong; it will be a wild rollercoaster ride with lots of ups and downs, but it is now mostly a done deal.

Hillary's major asset was a very well-known brand name. That gave her California (mostly on the basis of early absentee voting before Obama campaigned hard there). Relatively speaking, Obama is now well-known enough that the Clinton brand name, by itself, will not pack much punch. Obama may possibly outcompete Clinton in the remaing caucuses and primaries (but the net delegate change would still be small).

However, much more significantly for the delegate hunt now, he is poised to gather the lion's share  of the Superdelegates. There are 800. Initially, Clinton garnered about 200 and Obama about 100, leaving 500 "undecided." Most Superdelegates that would be inclined to go to Clinton, already have done so (since a tight contest was not anticipated, there was no point for a Superdelegate to wait to try to gain leverage).

Obama was the new kid and had to prove himself; on SuperTuesday he did so in spades. Almost all Red State Superdelegates want Obama at the top of the ticket because he is much less likely to generate reverse coattails.

Also, very importantly, The Washington DC Liberal Elite (read: Democratic Party Superdelegates) have apparently come to a fairly uniform consensus, given a choice, AGAINST the idea of a Clinton restoration. Whether this is a personal rebuff or whether they just don't favor reruns of gridlock, I don't know. Most likely, these people merely have come to the conclusion that each has more favorable career advancement prospects in an Obama Administration and/or the prospects of a Democratic Administration coming into being at all are brighter (with more Democratic jobs in DC for them). Sorry, the calculations really are this prosaic for cynical Washington DCers.

If the Obama campaign keeps up the good work, the state contests will go fine, and more importantly, the Superdelegates will break his way (but remember, if you are a Superdelegate, the longer you hold out in a tight contest, the more leverage you have... so this may happen late in the game).

Have fun. This kind of campaign happens only once in a lifetime.
Good luck.

by MAA 2008-02-06 09:32AM | 0 recs
Re: A Tie Goes To Clinton

You said it.

by Shaun Appleby 2008-02-06 09:47AM | 0 recs
Re: A Tie Goes To Clinton

I could not disagree more:

The Past:
Yesterday the Clintons only won states that were already in their column, and even lost some of those. Obama won all the states in play, and all the one's in his column.

The Future:
Look at the demographics for the remaining states in the nomination race. These states are all advantage or at least even for Obama. Give Obama more time to work the ground game and for us, his grass root movement to carry the race. Super Tuesday was Hillary's best bet to end this race and she missed her chance.

Washington 02/09 97

Louisiana 02/09 66 C

Nebraska 02/09 31

Maine 02/10 34 C

Virginia 02/12 101

Maryland 02/12 99 C

District of Columbia 02/12 38 C

Wisconsin 02/19 92

Hawaii 02/19 29

Texas 03/04 228

Ohio 03/04 161

Rhode Island 03/04 32

Vermont 03/04 23

Wyoming 03/08 18 C

Mississippi 03/10 40

Pennsylvania 04/22 188 C

North Carolina 05/06 134

Indiana 05/06 84

West Virginia 05/13 39

Oregon 05/20 65 C

Kentucky 05/20 60 C

Montana 06/03 24

South Dakota 06/03 23 C

*C Closed Primary

by maxmcgloin 2008-02-06 12:30PM | 0 recs


Advertise Blogads