Clinton's Path To The Nomination May Run Through North Carolina

The other day I saw Chuck Todd on TV speaking about a Bill Clinton event in North Carolina during which the former president told North Carolina voters, as he had done to Texas voters weeks before, that it's in their hands, that if Hillary Clinton wins North Carolina she'll be the nominee. Chuck Todd's assessment of that statement: "and you know what, he'd be right."  

John Heilemann nails why North Carolina is crucial to Hillary Clinton's path to the nomination:

Why is the Tarheel State ostensibly so important? Because, of the nine states (including Puerto Rico) still waiting to hold primaries, it's the only one in which African-Americans make up north of 10 percent of the population -- thus it's the last opportunity for HRC to score a ringing, unequivocal upset against BHO. (Indeed, blacks are expected to make up as much as a third of the Democratic primary electorate in North Carolina.)

A win there would not change the pledged delegate math terribly for Clinton, but rather would give her a psychological boost, particularly among the undeclared superdelegates.

...it would surely buttress the argument that she and her people are adamantly making to the remaining undecided superdelegates: that buyer's remorse is setting in among Democrats as they learn more about her rival; that they are slowly waking up to the fact that she and not Obama would be the stronger runner against John McCain.

A point that is made all the more stark by a quick glance at First Read's breakdown of the pledged and super delegate situation assuming nothing surprising happens between now until June.

If the remaining contests split up "as expected" meaning Clinton wins her base states (PA, KY, WV etc.) and Obama wins his base states (NC, OR, MT etc.) and the two split Indiana down the middle, the two campaigns will likely split those 566 delegates right down the middle 283-283 (margin of error +/- 5 delegates). This means Obama would need 34% of the uncommitted superdelegates to hit the magic 2024 number, while Clinton would need 72% of the uncommitted Supers to hit 2024.

This is not how Clinton wants June to end, which is why the Clinton campaign has dispatched Ace Smith, who spear-headed Clinton's California and Texas victories, to North Carolina and not Pennsylvania. While PA is touted as must-win for Clinton, it's actually become a will-win and as Heilemann argues compellingly, North Carolina is becoming Clinton's latest must-win.

Which makes the shift in the state just since last week such bad news for Clinton. According to the latest survey from NC-based Public Policy Polling, Obama has gone from a virtual tie to a significant lead in just one week.


CandidateMarch 24March 17March 3RCP 3-poll Ave.
Obama55444750.3
Clinton34434338.3
Undecided111310

If such a shift seems unbelievable, well, it's because it is, but not because, as Josh Marshall suspects, last week's poll was an outlier. Rather, as PPP's blog reminds us:

...we are changing our universe from folks who voted in the 2004 or 2006 primaries to folks who voted in the 2004 primary, 2006 primary, or 2006 general. That's who we called for our very accurate Democratic polls in Wisconsin, Texas, and Ohio. Given that it's clear now we will have a high intensity primary in North Carolina as well it seems like the time is right to make that change here.

That's not to say that a 21 point lead for Obama is inaccurate necessarily (although no other poll taken in March has had him up by double digits,) it's just to say that there are other factors that account for his 7-day 20 point shift. But as the poll analysis makes clear, had the methodology remained the same, Obama likely would still have put some distance between himself and Clinton thanks both to his speech on race as well as several appearances in the state over the past few days.

I suspect that the reality of Obama's lead lies somewhere south of 20 points but no matter what the true number, considering the importance of the state for Clinton as well as Obama's advantage there, to say that Ace Smith has his work cut out for him is an understatement.



Display:


Thank you for posting about this. (none / 0)

I was wondering if there would be another front page article to match the one where it was almost tied, but sure enough there was one.  Thanks!


But in the unlikely story that is America, there has never been anything false about hope.
by thezzyzx on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 05:42:19 PM EST

More than one path to victory.... (2.00 / 2)

Look, there is always a run against a 76yr old John McCain in 2012.

All Hillary has to do is to drag this out to the Convention, splitting the Party and damaging Obama enough to make sure a genuinely patriotic American wins.

If in the meantime it costs us a couple of SCOTUS appointments, who cares?


Clinton Democrats care about the same things I do, most importantly beating John McCain.
by TrueBlueCT on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 05:47:57 PM EST

Re: More than one path to victory.... (2.00 / 1)

I soooo hope you are kidding or being sarcastic

I mean I assume you are but,

you are being sarcastic right?


Dream for tomorrow but fight for it today.
by TruthMatters on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 05:55:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: More than one path to victory.... (2.00 / 1)

Isn't it sad that on can't tell anymore?


by zonk on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 06:12:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: More than one path to victory.... (2.00 / 1)

Obama has done an even better job of splitting the party!

His crew and their personal attacks, plus his own baggage, have turned him into an unappealing opportunist ...a Pyrrhic victory is the only thing he'll get, if that.


by Gloria on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 06:17:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: More than one path to victory.... (none / 0)

Obama is radioactive now and he has no one to blame but himself.


by tiffany on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 06:46:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

you guys are so funny (2.00 / 3)

I love this site.  Better than the Onion!

Obama is "radioactive" and it is all his fault.  Great stuff!  

Funny, polls out today in PA and NC seem to point the other way.  


If yer after gettin the honey, then you don't go killing all the bees.
by Fluffy Puff Marshmallow on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 07:15:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Yes and the polls do confirm your statement right? (none / 0)

Radioactive must be the new black


by KLRinLA on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 07:17:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: More than one path to victory.... (none / 0)

"Obama is radioactive now"

An certainly with no help from you?


by Tunk on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 09:41:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: More than one path to victory.... (none / 0)

Gloria-
What personal attacks?  
I feel like the Obama campaign has actually been quite good in this regard.

I feel like if you are going to level a charge, you should have specific evidence.  


by cwsaterfield on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 07:59:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

On the flip side (2.00 / 1)

Should we expect her to drop out if she fails to take the upset, or do we move the goal posts again?


by furiousxgeorge on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 05:49:17 PM EST

Re: On the flip side (none / 0)

it moves.


Dream for tomorrow but fight for it today.
by TruthMatters on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 05:56:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: On the flip side (2.00 / 3)

All she has to do is win the critical state of West Virginia.  If she wins WV, she's the nominee.

That's sarcasm by the way.


by Skaje on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 07:03:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: On the flip side (2.00 / 1)

Hillary is no quitter. She will stay and fight for us. We have had enough of quitters in Kerry in 04. That's not our girl.Hillary will stay and fight. Millions and millions of voters believe in her.
 BTW, the big states, where people actually live in very large numbers...where progressives live and work and voted in primarys..... They all went to Hillary.
 I believe Obama needs to quit the race now. He is running a cunning and underhanded campaign and it is splitting the Dem. party.
 ie: pulling the race card out over and over.
 Don't make me post links..
by naturesway on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 08:18:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Clinton's Math (2.00 / 1)

So, now it's only the big states where there were Democratic primaries that Clinton cares about? I guess that means she couldn't care less about winning, say, Washington State or Colorado. She's going to write off Iowa.

And Virginia, where she was trounced, well, I guess she doesn't care much about Virginia, either. Not big enough. She cared a lot about Texas, until it turned out that she lost that one.

Come on, folks, I was a Clinton supporter until Geraldine Ferraro decided that Obama wasn't white enough or something. I was even elected a Clinton delegate in one of those caucus states, but now that I know her campaign doesn't care about caucus delegates I think I'll stay home.

When is someone going to tell her that this is becoming more ridiculous every day? Hillary Clinton has a long record of service to the Democratic Party. It's one of several reasons why I supported her. But this is verging on bizarre.


by cwilson on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 08:30:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton's Math (none / 0)

Your story is pretty interesting.  Any other delegates that you know of that are re-considering now?


by leshrac55 on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 09:54:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I Don't Know (none / 0)

I'd love to be able to tell you that I know of 100 delegates who are doing what I'm doing, but I'm not going to just make it up like some people do.


by cwilson on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 10:00:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I Don't Know (none / 0)

Thanks.  I was just curious, but appreciate your honesty. =)


by leshrac55 on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 12:54:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Perfectly Reasonable Question (none / 0)

Wouldn't it be amazing if any political candidate from any party ever once said, "I don't know. I'll get back to you on that" to a question?


by cwilson on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 05:09:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Goalposts. (2.00 / 1)


My candidate lost fair and square. So did yours. Get over it and let's kick McSame's ass!
by RLMcCauley on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 05:54:58 PM EST

Re: Clinton's Path (none / 0)

she should try to have her name removed from the NC & IN ballots because the race ends in PA.   And she & bill should not campaign there otherwise some people in the media might get the strange idea that PA is not the end of the race for the nomination :(


by soros on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 06:00:14 PM EST

Re: Clinton's Path (none / 0)

Good idea!  Then we can not count those states, like we're not counting Michigan.


On to the Convention Floor!
by oh puhleeze on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 07:26:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton's Path To The Nomination May Run Throu (none / 0)

    I love how she's assumed she has won Pennsylvania.  She thinks it's a slam dunk.  I hope she isn't listening to the same advisers who kept saying that the nomination would be over on February 5.  


Jim Oberweis
by cilerder86 on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 06:08:29 PM EST

Re: Clinton's Path To The Nomination May Run Throu (none / 0)

Heh, if you look at the polls an Obama win in PA looks about as likely as, umm, well, a Clinton win in NC.  Neither is happening :P


by furiousxgeorge on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 06:12:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton's Path To The Nomination May Run Throu (none / 0)

  Today's Rasmussen shows Clinton up ten in Pennsylvania.  Today's PPP poll shows Obama up 21 in North Carolina.  Obviously, each is likely to win the state he/she leads in now.  I just think it's a bad idea to make assumptions so late in the game - particularly with almost a month left until the PA primary.  But I suppose when your back is against the wall you have to gamble a little.


Jim Oberweis
by cilerder86 on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 06:21:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton's Path To The Nomination May Run Throu (none / 0)

Doesn't PPP have Clinton up by something like 26 in PA? I am not sure what is going on for them, but they seem to be predicting blowouts in both directions.


by hctb on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 06:59:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton's Path To The Nomination May Run Throu (none / 0)

I agree. The PPP is off on both states.


by cwsaterfield on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 08:00:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

That's why (none / 0)

you should compare the results of different polling firms in a graphic that suggests a trend...

It only confuses and isn't comparable.


by Nazgul35 on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 08:59:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: That's why (none / 0)

That should be shouldn't compare


by Nazgul35 on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 08:59:40 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton's Path To The Nomination May Run Throu (none / 0)

Jim,

Why do you say she thinks it's a slam dunk when she has spent more time campaigning there than any place else?  I agree with your suggestion that her campaign folks have been less than astute, though.


by bobbank on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 07:22:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton's Path To The Nomination May Run Throu (none / 0)

Can anyone tell me why Obama fans don't want to let everyone vote and have their vote counted?
 Do they hate Democracy?
by naturesway on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 08:20:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton's Path To The Nomination May Run Throu (none / 0)

I would ask the same question of Hillary. Remember Hillary was expecting this thing to be over on February 5th.  She didn't give a damn about everyone voting until she was losing.


by kristannab on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 08:23:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

she did not really say (none / 0)

a word about Florida/Michigan till she started losing either.


-- be excellent to each other
by kindthoughts on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 08:48:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton's Path To The Nomination May Run Throu (none / 0)

  Yeah, because that's really what I was saying.  You can't find anyone who disagrees with you, so you pick a fight.  Go back to freeperville.


Jim Oberweis
by cilerder86 on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 08:36:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

30% AA and someone thinks she can win? (2.00 / 1)

After she dissed Rev. Wright and her associate equated him to David Duke?

If anyone really thinks she can win I want some of what they're smoking.


My candidate lost fair and square. So did yours. Get over it and let's kick McSame's ass!
by RLMcCauley on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 06:11:38 PM EST

Re: 30% AA and someone thinks she can win? (2.00 / 1)

The comparison to Duke is fine with me.  I think it's accurate (apples to apples, you know)...


No politician ever lost an election because he underestimated the intelligence of the American public. - PT Barnum, paraphrased...
by jarhead5536 on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 06:53:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Except that Wright is not a racist, (none / 0)

read the whole sermon, step in his shoes for a second while doing so... you'll figure it out


by KLRinLA on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 07:21:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Except that Wright is not a racist, (none / 0)

You assume that I am white.  I am not.  The whole concept of black liberation theology smacks of eternal resentment of the white man, which to me is racist...


No politician ever lost an election because he underestimated the intelligence of the American public. - PT Barnum, paraphrased...
by jarhead5536 on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 07:24:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

listen to his entire (none / 0)

sermon please.


-- be excellent to each other
by kindthoughts on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 08:49:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I don't assume anything (none / 0)

and I don't care what you are, the guy is not a racist, he defintely has resentment for US gvt.'s institutionalized racism against the African American and he is more than hyperbolic about presenting his observations of such discrimination, but the man's not racist.  Ask all the other church attendees, they're not all black


by KLRinLA on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 07:39:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Really? He wants to oppress and kill white folks? (none / 0)


My candidate lost fair and square. So did yours. Get over it and let's kick McSame's ass!
by RLMcCauley on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 07:59:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: 30% AA and someone thinks she can win? (none / 0)

I have to agree with KLRinLA on this one.

If one looks at Wright's life time of actions and sermons and not just at the youtube clips AND if one places him in a historical context with particular understanding of the South Side of Chicago (where, by the way, NATIVE SON is set), it is hard to argue that he is comparable to David Duke.  

That said, while I would argue he's not a Racist, I would accept the charge that he's an anti-semite and he's anti-gay.  

As an Obama advocate, I have to look those apparent realities in the face, balance them with what I know about Barack Obama, and make a nuanced decision.  But don't use a misinformed understanding of Wright to color your impression of Barack Obama.  That's a double injustice!


by cwsaterfield on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 08:07:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: 30% AA and someone thinks she can win? (none / 0)

It's my impression that Wright isn't anti-gay at all--at least, not in comparison to other religeous leaders. Obama's church is pro-gay marriage, and the church even has a singles group for gay members.

Here are some links on the issue.

http://www.washblade.com/thelatest/thela test.cfm?blog_id=17266

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/th e_daily_dish/2008/03/wright-and-gays.htm l

If there's something I'm missing, let me know.


by DPW on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 08:35:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: 30% AA and someone thinks she can win? (none / 0)

"I want some of what they're smoking"

Yeah me, too.  The AA vote for Clinton dried up when she brought up Rev. Wright today.  In the south particularly, there are A LOT of Rev. Wrights in AA churches.  Her best bet is if there's a HUGE Latino populaton in NC.


by happycozy on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 10:08:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Joe Trippi discussed this a few weeks ago on (none / 0)

his first blog for CBS News. Apparently, he is now an analyst for them...

At the time, he said the NC could be very important for Hillary and a good showing there followed by PA would be critical...


by Gloria on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 06:15:07 PM EST

Re: Joe Trippi discussed this a few weeks ago on (none / 0)

PA is before NC.


by hctb on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 07:01:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton's Path To The Nomination May Run Throu (none / 0)

Sister Beezlebub and Senator SnakeOil have demonstrated that they care zero for the nation their party or anything but the mad lust for POWER!

A pox upon both their cult-infested houses.

Fortunately there is a solution. All we've got do is stand up, us millions of progressive Americans, and say:

I've heard enough; time for a real change!

And if you think I'm nuts you don't know your American political history pal.


by Pericles on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 06:17:23 PM EST

Re: Clinton's Path To The Nomination May Run Throu (none / 0)

once again for her to bring up Wright (right or wrong) when her chances rest on NC where they expect 30% of the voters to be AA is just not smart.

seriously her advisor's have no long range planning ability at all,

yes it will help with PA
but it will kill in NC then what?

as this diary shows expectations are that they will split thus leaving Obama in the lead.

I don't care what people think on the issue if NC becomes a must win for her, then attacking Obama on Wright when 30% of the voters will be AA and many of them will understand his feelings (especially when you listen to the full sermon)

well its just not a smart tactical move


Dream for tomorrow but fight for it today.
by TruthMatters on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 06:20:44 PM EST

Re: Clinton's Path To The Nomination May Run Throu (none / 0)

If you think white Carolinians are going to just shut up and take Wright's long association with Obama without comment, you are smoking something...


No politician ever lost an election because he underestimated the intelligence of the American public. - PT Barnum, paraphrased...
by jarhead5536 on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 06:55:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton's Path To The Nomination May Run Throu (none / 0)

did I say that?

or did I say having 30% of the voters ALREADY against you, makes the state an uphill battle for you?

pretty sure white Carolinians, as you call them don't vote as a block, but like I said bringing up Wright when once again if you ACTUALLY listen to the sermon alot of AA would agree with alot of it and won't appreciate what hillary is trying to do here.

I said it was not a smart tactical move.

so if you don't have anything to add don't reply me just to insult me


Dream for tomorrow but fight for it today.
by TruthMatters on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 07:03:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton's Path To The Nomination May Run Throu (none / 0)

Don't mean to be insulting.  I have listened to  a few of the sermons in their entirety.  I am also AA (well, half to be frank, so a foot in both camps).  The fact that there are those that agree with his ranting (some of my own family among them) is beyond discouraging to me.  That said, the reality that many AA's agree with this philosphy has now come to white America, and it isn't  taking the news well from what I've seen personally.  I am also a Southerner, as it happens, and white Southerners are a breed apart with regards to race relations, and can be counted on to take the revelation of Wright's teachings as confirmation of whatever pre-conceived notions about blacks they may already be harboring...

The highlighting of this division is tragic.


No politician ever lost an election because he underestimated the intelligence of the American public. - PT Barnum, paraphrased...
by jarhead5536 on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 07:30:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

And you think he is the same as David Duke? (none / 0)

Or do you just think that Wright has the same divisive potential as David Duke, when it comes to Southern White voters?

For Clinton to ask him to leave his congregation is ridiculous, he has been a member for 20 years, with links in that community, that is his family. Are you going to disown your family members that agree with Wright?


by KLRinLA on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 08:10:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton's Path To The Nomination May Run Throu (none / 0)

You think something like 80% of whites will vote for Clinton in NC?  


My candidate lost fair and square. So did yours. Get over it and let's kick McSame's ass!
by RLMcCauley on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 08:04:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton's Path To The Nomination May Run Throu (none / 0)

She did not bring up Wright. She answered a question about him during an interview.

Perhaps she wants the Wright issue to go to bed now before the campaign starts in earnest in NC. If she continued to dodge questions it would not go away on its own.


by ineedalife on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 08:01:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

An FYI (none / 0)

Just so you know, this wasn't some harmless little interview with a random set of reporters.  This was an interview with the Scaife-run Pittsburgh Tribune-Review.  That's right, the Scaifes that funded the Arkansas Project and many of the other dirty little projects that marred the 1990s.  

I personally find it outrageous that she would choose this place, the home of her worst political enemies, to answer questions in this way.


by zadura on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 09:02:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Yeah (none / 0)

it had nothing to do with the fact that she was having her ass handed to here over the Bosnia yarn she got caught spinning...

Nothing to see here...move along.

I mean, it's not like she deflected this story on multiple occasions until she needed to get the heat off of her.


by Nazgul35 on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 09:04:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton's Path To The Nomination May Run Throu (none / 0)

Anyone who takes note of polls has to know
that Pollster has their shit together.
Pollster on NC trend
http://www.pollster.com/08-NC-Dem-Pres-P rimary.php
"If you want to end war and stuff, you gotta sing loud"...Arlo Guthrie
by nogo war on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 06:21:54 PM EST

Strategy Of Attacking Preachers A Loser in NC (none / 0)

It's the Bible Belt and half the preachers are goofy, black and white.

So if HRC wants to play the carpetbagger, let her try.

According to her standard, nobody in NC could ever hold elected office.

Look for some serious backlash against Hillary.


by bernardpliers on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 06:26:15 PM EST

See... (none / 0)

If she wins NC, she pretty much clinches the nomination. It would be stunning.

But if she loses, she still has reason to go on, particularly because of Puerto Rico.


by Scan on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 06:26:46 PM EST

Re: See... (none / 0)

nope she is predicted to take PR meaning its already accounted for in that split,

meaning as things are now if she doesn't win NC they they will probably split meaning in june Obama is STILL the popular vote winner, delegate winner, number of states, etc


Dream for tomorrow but fight for it today.
by TruthMatters on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 06:30:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: See... (none / 0)

"pretty much clinches the nomination?"

Please explain, using actual numbers.  Explain how such a win, even after a double-digit win for her in Pennsylvania, would get her even within 120 pledged delegates of Obama, let alone clinching it. And please explain exactly how a tsunami of superdelegates -- who have had since last fall, when she was "inevitable", to come to her and have not -- will suddenly come her way to overcome her huge pledged delegate shortful.


by Onward Virginia Democrats on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 07:08:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Shed stull be behind so how does she clinch? (none / 0)


My candidate lost fair and square. So did yours. Get over it and let's kick McSame's ass!
by RLMcCauley on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 08:09:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

OK. You told us what Clinton needs (2.00 / 1)

Can you do Edwards and Kucinich now?


by Cleveland John on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 06:33:25 PM EST

There is no Clinton path (none / 0)

to the nomination.  NC or not, it ain't happening.  

Clinton supporters:  She doesn't care about you.  She's not on your side.  She just wants what's owed to her and she's happy to misuse your goodwill.


by Garret on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 06:35:58 PM EST

Re: Clinton's Path to her own backyard (2.00 / 1)

The title of this diary cracks me up.  There is no path to the nomination through NC for Clinton.  

Apart from moves that divide the party, there is no path to the nomination period.

She's won 1 state - Arkansas - by 60+%, which is the number she'd need in all remaining states to come even close in pledged delegates.  Reality check - this is not going to happen.

Super delegates are not moving her direction - they are moving away from her.  Could Wright stem the tide for her?  Maybe.  But not likely.  Richardson's endorsement came at the right time.  A Clinton ally speaking for Obama in the midst of the Wright coverage is damaging to her hopes to swing other SDs her way.  SDs won't overturn the winner of the popular and pledged delegate totals, which barring the 60% figure won't happen.

If anyone can show a realistic path to the nomination, that doesn't damage the party to further one individual's interest, I'll listen.  I haven't seen any persuasive arguments yet.


Be a Jan fan! Schakowsky for US Senate.
by passionateprogressive on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 06:36:27 PM EST

Re: Clinton's Path to her own backyard (none / 0)

"even her own advisers think she only has a 10% chance of winning the nomination"

Ah yes, the anonymous "important adviser" that Politico invented as part of a piece that literally reads like a recycled David Axelrod press release.  Sorry, I prefer citation and reputable sources.  Several of the writers at Politico have long revealed themselves to be little more than partisan parrots.


by bobbank on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 07:15:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Break the silence... (none / 0)

I agree Mork.  I have asked this question on this site and others and have yet to receive a serious response.

Their instinct, like their candidate's, is to attack the Obama supporters instead of building their real case for how the math works out.

It's because the math isn't there and they just don't want to face it.

I'm hopeful this will be over by early May primaries, or at the latest early June.

I was an Edwards supporter but am now more focused on winning in November and keeping the party moving forward.  Hillary bowing out gracefully would be the smartest move she's made this year.


Be a Jan fan! Schakowsky for US Senate.
by passionateprogressive on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 10:19:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

There's the math and then... (none / 0)

there's the fact that I am waiting to hear a positive reason to vote for Sen. Clinton rather than her campaigns purported reasons not to vote for Obama.  She has talked very high-mindedly about a lot of policy that she supports and her experience, but she has shown almost no aptitude to get things done and a nasty habit for exaggeration and mismanagement.  


by zadura on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 01:34:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton's Path to her own backyard (none / 0)

"Super delegates are not moving her direction - they are moving away from her."

Gosh - so many Obamavision lies to refute, and only so many hours in the day.  You folks sure now how to make an honest man work.

I have been following Superdelegate movement closely since Hillary's victory on "Super Tuesday 2.0".  Here's how the Supers have actually moved since then:

Moved to Obama: 2
Moved to Clinton: 6

Not exactly "moving away from her", eh?  I'm sorry that reality is sometimes so inconvenient for you folks.  Here's the no-spin version: there has been virtually no Superdelegate movement since then, as Superdelegates are (wisely) anxious to see how the Wright conspiracy plays out in a real live election.  PA looks a lot like many places in America, so they will use this to guage how successful Barack was in convincing people to look the other way.


by bobbank on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 07:20:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton's Path to her own backyard (none / 0)

wrong. Make that 7 to obama, 4 to Clinton.

http://demconwatch.blogspot.com/2008/01/ superdelegate-list.html


by poserM on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 07:28:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton's Path to her own backyard (none / 0)

Obama's supers since March 5:
from http://demconwatch.blogspot.com/2008/01/ superdelegate-list.html

Bill Richardson
Margie Woods
melissa Schroeder
Mary jo Neville
Bill Foster
Joyce Brayboy
Everett Sanders
Alexandra Gallardo-Rooker
Rhine McLin
Jane Kidd
Darlena Williams-Burnett
Connie Thurman
Nick Rahall
Teresa Benitez-Thompson

That's 14.  The same site shows seven for Clinton

Note that I am not including anyone whom they moved from supporting one candidate to uncommitted, or anyone whom they added saying that the person had endorsed earlier but been unable to find a link.  If I include those, it is -1 for Clinton and -1 for Obama added to the above.

Now, I agree that this is not a tremendous movement among superdelegates.  But the 6-2 number you came up with is not accurate.


Want a progressive global warming novel, not a right wing rant? Go to www.edwardgtalbot.com for a free audio thriller.
by edparrot on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 07:41:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton's Path to her own backyard (none / 0)

I don't think you've been following superdelegate movement closely enough.

According to Democratic Convention Watch:

On 3/2 (two days before "Super Tuesday 2.0"):
Clinton Supers: 240
Obama Supers: 193

On 3/23:
Clinton Supers: 246
Obama Supers: 210

http://demconwatch.blogspot.com/2008/02/ superdelegate-history-tracker.html

By my math that's Clinton +6, Obama + 17.

Now how many of those are actually pledged PLEO from caucus certifications, I don't know for certain. But it looks as though more Supers have been moving Obama's way since Texas and Ohio. Clinton also lost a superdelegate when Spitzer resigned while Obama picked up a newly-minted one when Dems won the Illinois 14th.


John McCain supports dismantling Social Security
by DesideriusErasmus on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 07:48:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: New Poll in North Carolina: Huge Obama Shift (none / 0)

Believe me, this PPP outfit is on the ball.  I am from NC, and so is PPP.  I learned how good they were the day before the Texas primary, when I noticed that the poll they released that day showed a dramatic shift away from Obama.  I also noticed that they showed a shocking turnaround in the white male vote from Obama to Clinton.  I was scornfully skeptical so I called PPP.  He assured me it was not a mistake.  I said that was impossible.  They stuck by their numbers.  Only later that day did I learn that Rush Limbaugh had engaged his "Chaos' strategy against Obama and the Democratic party, leveraging white males to vote for someone they detested (HC) in that cause.

And so it happened.  PPP called the Texas Primary to a fault.

So listen closely to them, and their sudden 20 point turnaround in this NC poll.  This is no schlock outfit.  

How could it be this time?

Here's your clue: this is one of two state polls to be conducted in a timeframe to absorb the full impact of the Obama Philadelphia speech. Apparently North Carolinians were listening, and may have even figured out who was pulling the strings behind the entire Wright flare up to begin-with. (The other, in PA, conducted a little earlier, shows a narrowing of Clinton's lead to 10 points from 15 earlier this month.)

Well, boys and girls, it could be the Kitchen-Sink strategy has failed.  That's the good news.

The Bad News? I hate to think what the Clinton's have in mind for phase II of their "Tonya Harding" strategy.


by Fichetail on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 06:40:46 PM EST

Re: New Poll in North Carolina: Huge Obama Shift (none / 0)

Is the 'fault' that they did not predict an Obama win in Texas?

I live in NC. Neither candidate has really done much here. The Clinton campaign faces a trade-off between NC and IN and right now it looks like they are focusing on IN. But I think OBama need to get on the ground here. But then maybe he is not interested in me or my neighbors. I mean I have heard he doesnt do that well with whites w/PhDs and students. :)

We will see.  


by hctb on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 07:10:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: New Poll in North Carolina: Huge Obama Shift (none / 0)

damn. Hillary is here right now. That is my fault for reading my local late. my bad.

It is interesting that she is spending quite a bit of time in the Triangle where one would expect she is at a disadvantage. hmm.


by hctb on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 07:19:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Bill Clinton doubled the NIH budget (none / 0)

NIEHS (National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences)  is in the Triangle and alot of research is funded by NIH.


by ineedalife on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 08:18:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: New Poll in North Carolina: Huge Obama Shift (none / 0)

Obama IS working NC. In fact, he is laying down the groundwork in the remaining 8 states. PA, IN, NC, OR, MT, SD, KY, and WV.

His supporters have already started phonebbanking into all 8 states. Hillary, on the other hand, is focusing on PA and IN for now.


by poserM on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 07:20:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: New Poll in North Carolina: Huge Obama Shift (none / 0)

She is here now. we are both wrong.


by hctb on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 07:36:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: New Poll in North Carolina: Huge Obama Shift (none / 0)

Lot's of false information from our friends at Obamavision Marketing, so let's correct some of them:

1. If Fichetail had read the article before responding, it is clear that the dramatic shift has more to do with a change in sampling method.

2. "This PPP outfit" that Fiche is so fond of actually puts Clinton at a game-changing 26 point lead over Obama (I estimate that's about 520,000 popular vote gain for Hillary, or about 2/3's of Obama's slim lead erased with just one state).

3.  Since this was PPP's first poll in PA in over a year, it's just a complete lie to say that PPP put her at a 15 point lead "earlier this month."

However, there is no question that Clinton has her work cut out for her in NC.  This is due in large part to the aggressive campaign of irresponsible racial politics that Obama's people made famous in a state just a bit further south.

Look for the same race-baiting strategy in NC, but amplified, now that a passive media has signed off on the Obama political speech on race.  Unfortunately, because of this dirty politicking, the results of NC are somewhat predictable.  Obama will carry 75-90% of the African American vote, which makes up 1/3 of the constituency, and Hillary will carry 60-75% of the white vote.

It sounds blunt and inappropriate to frame it that way, but that is the contest Obama has worked for.  Doing the math, that gives Obama roughly 50% of the vote.  So, setting polls aside, I suspect we'll see whoever wins this state emerge with something like a 55/45 split.  The winner will be determined in large part by: performance at televised debates, and how determined the media remains in shielding us from the maelstrom of controversial associations that the blogosphere is beginning to learn about Obama.

Feel free to check me on this in May and let me know how my predictive skills are. =)


by bobbank on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 07:12:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: New Poll in North Carolina: Huge Obama Shift (none / 0)

fair enough about PPP's PA numbers but if then OBama went on to win NC by the 20 point margin we would be back to where we are now, with Obama holding all the cards.


by wasder on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 07:17:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: New Poll in North Carolina: Huge Obama Shift (none / 0)

It isn't possible for him to win NC by that big a margin because he has worked to hard to polarize voters along racial lines, IMO.  But this is part of the point of this article - if he could win NC by that big a margin, then folks like me would have to concede that he is not the racial divider that we think he is.

I actually don't think he is holding any cards at the moment.  The Axelrod spin is that he has all the advantages, but Superdelegates clearly disagree, or they would have ended this.  They want to see what happens in PA.  Depending on those results, one or both of the candidates may get a card or two to play.


by bobbank on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 07:26:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: New Poll in North Carolina: Huge Obama Shift (none / 0)

Obama won the white vote in the state just north of NC, and one of those white votes was mine. He is the  most unifying candidate I could ever imagine. I think it's you and people like you that are the dividers.


Senator Obama will be formally nominated on August 28, 2008 - the 45th Anniversary of Dr. King's "I Have A Dream Speech."
by brimur on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 07:56:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Hows The Weather On Your Planet? (none / 0)

Man you are one delusional Republican. ".....he has worked to hard to polarize voters along racial lines, IMO."
by bernardpliers on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 07:57:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: New Poll in North Carolina: Huge Obama Shift (none / 0)

I agree with Brimur.
Bob, how has Obama created this racial division?

The racial division is HERE. Obama offers a chance to start to bridge some of those divisions through creating dialogue and implementing a progressive agenda which strives for equity.


by cwsaterfield on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 08:26:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: New Poll in North Carolina: Huge Obama Shift (none / 0)

One thing I've learned is that folks are honestly not informed about this subject, at all.  I don't blame you; I blame the way the media has handled it.

I've decided I need to compile a blog on this subject, because there are frankly so many factual examples that can be backed with credible citation, it's too much to squeeze into a hasty reply.

One of those citations, incidently, is Barack Obama, who admitted to lying when he said he hadn't played the race card in SC, and claimed to have regretted doing so.  But this is a pattern that goes all the way back to Iowa and has been consistent throughout.


by bobbank on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 03:29:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: New Poll in North Carolina: Huge Obama Shift (none / 0)

Actually, i think it would be +30 for Clinton if they are both blow outs. Maybe my math is wrong--and  yes I know he is up 100 pledged delegates, but I think a blowout in PA would advantage Clinton.

I think both are probably wrong.


by hctb on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 07:32:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: New Poll in North Carolina: Huge Obama Shift (none / 0)

Obama is up 167 pledged delegates.  There is a big difference between 100 and 167.


by Onward Virginia Democrats on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 07:40:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: New Poll in North Carolina: Huge Obama Shift (none / 0)

that is without anything happening from FL.  Maybe you think those delegates will just be split 50/50. delusional.


by hctb on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 08:42:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: New Poll in North Carolina: Huge Obama Shift (none / 0)

Let's say 60-40...what then?


by Timetheos on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 11:48:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: New Poll in North Carolina: Huge Obama Shift (none / 0)

Here's how big +167 is:

if we re-ran New York, California, Massachusetts, Arkansas, New Jersey, Oklahoma, Tennessee, and Ohio -- Clinton's 8 biggest wins -- and let them count their delegates twice...

Obama would still be ahead.


by Rorgg on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 12:31:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: New Poll in North Carolina: Huge Obama Shift (none / 0)

"Look for the same race-baiting strategy in NC, but amplified, now that a passive media has signed off on the Obama political speech on race.  Unfortunately, because of this dirty politicking, the results of NC are somewhat predictable."

Sucks that HRC's race-baiting strategies backfired on her, one should always gain from dirty politicking, not lose


by KLRinLA on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 07:29:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: New Poll in North Carolina: Huge Obama Shift (none / 0)

Feel free to provide one example of Hillary using racial politics in this campaign.  It's a media/Axelrod lie, nothing more.  Only one campaign has consistently employed dirty racial politics in this contest, and that is Obama's.

Which makes sense, if you think about it (this is a healthy exercise, Obamites, try it!)

Already into Fall of 2007, Hillary still enjoyed the majority of black votes, the majority of latino votes, the majority of male votes, and the majority of white votes.  Her campaign had absolutely no incentive whatsoever to inject race.  Even if they had no principles at all, there was simply no self interest in doing so, no probably cause.

The Obama campaign, however, not only had an incentive, they had an urgent need to do it.  Headed into South Carolina, they needed to split the Democratic party along racial lines in order to reaffirm the legitmacy of their campaign.

Look, you can argue with me all you like (I encourage you to come up with examples so that we can help educate everyone on this), but keep in mind that Barack Obama himself admitted on a nationally televised debate that he did employ racial politics to win South Carolina, and claimed to regret it.  (Tim Russert asked the question "Do you regret pushing this?" after he caught Obama in a bold-faced lie by showing him pages and pages of racial mucking that his campaign had waged).

I hope that more Obama supporters continue to open their eyes, as I did, so that you can learn for yourself what his campaign has truly been about.


by bobbank on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 07:41:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: New Poll in North Carolina: Huge Obama Shift (none / 0)

Bill's Jackson comment; Ferraro; Hillary's comments today, just to name a few.


Senator Obama will be formally nominated on August 28, 2008 - the 45th Anniversary of Dr. King's "I Have A Dream Speech."
by brimur on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 07:58:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: New Poll in North Carolina: Huge Obama Shift (none / 0)

And the race stuff his staff was "pushing" was a list of all the racially divisive things the Clintons were doing. Showing it to the media. Thank god they were or they would have kept up at those tactics. Now they're right back at them.


Senator Obama will be formally nominated on August 28, 2008 - the 45th Anniversary of Dr. King's "I Have A Dream Speech."
by brimur on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 08:02:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: New Poll in North Carolina: Huge Obama Shift (none / 0)

Here's a long list of her race baiting

http://clintonattacksobama.pbwiki.com/


by kristannab on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 08:12:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: New Poll in North Carolina: Huge Obama Shift (none / 0)

I will be putting a blog together on this, hopefully tonight, or at latest over the weekend.  It makes me sad to see how uneducated and media-blinded folks are on this.  I'd like for you to see what a divisive racist machine you support when you parrot Axelrod talking points like this.


by bobbank on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 04:26:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Look people, this thing isn't over (none / 0)

Since there's no way to get to the magic number of delegates to clinch before the convention, all Kucinich needs to do is:

1) Re-enter the presidential race.

  1. Convince the Super Delegates to back him.
  2. Since pledged delegates are not legally bound to to support the candidate they are assigned to, Kucinich would need to peal off pledged delegates from both Obama and Clinton.

It is his RIGHT.


by Cleveland John on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 06:51:27 PM EST

55-34 is outlier (none / 0)


Landslide of lies
by engels on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 06:52:41 PM EST

Clinton's Path To The Nomination (none / 0)

Good piece; informative and balanced.


by bobbank on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 06:52:51 PM EST

Re: Clinton's Path To The Nomination (none / 0)

Bob-
Can you reply to Kristannab's reply to your statement that the Clinton camp has not raised race in this campaign?

Seems like you should rebut or grant the point.


by cwsaterfield on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 08:31:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

North Carolina (none / 0)

Todd wrote-

"...which is why the Clinton campaign has dispatched Ace Smith, who spear-headed Clinton's California and Texas victories..."

C'mon Todd, stop doing HRC a favor by repeating that spin.  She had a whopping big lead in Texas a month before Mar. 4, and in the end Obama walked away with something like +9 delegates from that state if memory serves correctly.  Her popular vote in TX wasn't that big, either, given the size of the turnout.  And let's recall that just days before TX we were being told by every pundit in the busniness that Hillary needed huge, 20-point blowout wins to keep her campaign alive.  What ever happened to that narrative?   How in the world does a loss of nine delegates in a state that she was supposed to have a substantial lead translate into a big success for her operative Ace Smith?

She came out of March 4 basically even, and then Obama picked up 4 more delegates out of CA the next day as a result of their final certification, and he also got 3 new superdelegates that same day.  So for the March 4-5 dates, Hillary actually lost ground, yet somehow the media spun that into encouraging news for her.  WTF?  

Why do the goalposts continue to be moved for HRC?  The expectations are constantly being lowered to make her appear more competetitive.
I can understand why the MSM promotes this stuff--it affects their bottom line.  But why you, Todd?


by global yokel on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 07:06:00 PM EST

Re: North Carolina (none / 0)

Jerome's out sick today?


by zonk on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 07:12:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: North Carolina (none / 0)

beyond LOL


by wasder on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 10:37:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton's Path (none / 0)

Look at how Obama did in South Carolina and Virginia.  I really can't imagine why anyone thinks Hillary has a chance here.  If NC is a must-win for her, than she has already lost.


by Skaje on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 07:07:35 PM EST

40 year Democrat doesn't like this (2.00 / 1)

Hillary is becoming Tonya Harding

Do you hate the Democrats so much you're willing to let someone who's lost the election kneecap the one who did?

It makes me sick.


by AmericanUnity on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 07:09:07 PM EST

Clinton Is Desperate: Look At The Numbers (none / 0)

She's 150 pledged delegates behind. She is 700,000 votes behind. She is 14 states behind. When this is all over, Obama will lead in all of those categories.

The only way Clinton can win the nomination is if she can convince enough insiders to toss out the results of the primaries and caucuses. If that happens, you can pretty much kiss the Democratic Party goodbye, and the general election along with it.

So, when will anyone close to her give Hillary Clinton the news that she will never become president? Are her advisers really that scared of her? Has she slip'd the surly bonds of earth and touched the face of God?


by cwilson on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 07:22:09 PM EST

Re: Clinton Is Desperate: Look At The Numbers (none / 0)

As I said earlier, that 700,000 votes figure is very thin and could be mostly erased after Pennsylvania.  I'm not particularly concerned about the pledged delegate figure.  The Obama campaign pursued a very wise strategy of shoring up their pledged delegate count by going only for states that all their competitors ignored (because they never vote Dem regardless).  It was smart, I would have done the same in their shoes, but it essentially amounts to gaming the system.

Here's what I'm most interested in:

(1) Who got the most votes (The Will of the People argument)
(2) Who shows the best performance v. McCain (Hillary has consistently lead here, but not by a big enough margin for me to find it compelling)

Pledged delegates in no way reflect the will of the people, and if you doubt that you can look to several examples where the results of the primary victory and the # pledged delegates awarded do not match at all.  So I don't see why it matters much except that Axelrod wants it to.  Likewise the "most states" argument is totally feeble to me.  Who cares if you win a buch of states that you have no Dem has a snowflake's chance in Hell of carrying in the GE?

If Hillary has not been able to make a compelling case for both (1) and (2) by June, with revotes held in MI and FL, then I will withdraw my support for Hillary and ask her to step down.  I'm certainly not going to stop supporting the best qualified candidate simply because Axelrod's marketing machine tells me to, though.


by bobbank on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 07:33:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton Is Desperate: Look At The Numbers (none / 0)

Clinton isn't going to make up 700,000 votes. If she steals the nomination, half the party will turn its back on her. I'll be one of them, and I'm someone who gave her $4,600. I'll vote for Nader before I cast a vote for her, and I loathe him.

The next few weeks will determine whether Clinton loses with dignity, or whether she (tries) to take the Democratic Party down with her. This is a character test, and we'll see what happens.


by cwilson on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 07:51:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton Is Desperate: Look At The Numbers (none / 0)

"Clinton isn't going to make up 700,000 votes."

Because David Axelrod told you so?  There are about 17,000,000 Democrats that still haven't voted.  That means that Hillary only requires a 4 point lead to make up that gap, and that's without relying on FL or MI.

Do you really think it is impossible for her to win on average by 4%, given that she is up by 26% in PA, which is home to about a quarter of the remaining 17 million?

Please take off the Obamavision glasses and use your own common sense, which I trust is better than this.

"If she steals the nomination, half the party will turn its back on her."

You could say the exact same thing about Barack Obama.  And that is why I said the most vitally important thing for any Democrat to think about right now is to conduct the remainder of this contest in such a way that both camps feel they have been treated fairly.


by bobbank on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 03:34:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton Is Desperate: Look At The Numbers (none / 0)

That sounds like a pretty reasonable metric for you to choose.  A couple of questions/concerns:

1) I don't know if this is true, but I had heard at some point that caucus states report their "popular vote" numbers as the number of won state delegates, or some such number.  Is that true, or are they the number of caucus goers or maybe some approximation of what that would mean if it were a primary?  Any of those possibilities seems pretty weird to me and I always considered that one of the reasons that delegates were ultimately counted and not the popular vote on the whole.

2) What if FL an MI don't revote?  Do you just count the votes as they are now (which I personally think might as well be arbitrary numbers at this point), or something else?

3) As to "Who cares if you win a buch of states that you have no Dem has a snowflake's chance in Hell of carrying in the GE?"  I hope you change your mind on that some day.  I think everyone who wants to vote for a Democrat in the general should have a say in choosing who the candidate is.  Wouldn't it be awesome if we could get to a point where every four years we weren't all at each others throats arguing about which of our candidates the voters of Florida would be most likely to accept?


by syrinx on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 03:21:11 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton Is Desperate: Look At The Numbers (none / 0)

Responding to your points above -

1. I don't know.  Caucuses are troublesome to me for a variety of reasons.  We've seen examples where the people chose one thing, but the caucus results chose another.  I don't especially care which candidate it benefits; the only reason we use them (I suspect) is because they are cheap.  I'm pretty sure this has nothing to do with why we count delegates rather than popular vote, though.

2. If FL and MI do not revote, it will be difficult for me to accept the results as a fair contest.  In the case of FL, I am more inclined to accept the results of the orignal primary.  In the case of MI, it seems to me somewhat naive that some Clinton supporters want those results to count, so I would really urge a revote.  I'm frustrated that the only reason these plans didn't succeed is because Barack Obama didn't want them to.  I'm even more frustrated that his campaign is so ashamed of this that they've tried to spin it in all sorts of flimsy ways.

3. No, thank you for calling me out on this point.  I do care what Democrats in those states think, and God bless them for being Blue in a sea of Red.  What I meant was that the metric of "who won the most states" seems completely meaningless to me.  Regardless of how precious I think each individual is, the ultimate objective is to win the White House, right?  If each state in the union got one vote, then maybe this metric would mean something to me.  But as it stands, I see no reason to pay heed.


by bobbank on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 03:57:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

There is no path. (none / 0)

This delusion is damaging not just the party but America. Your loyalty would be admirable if it served any purpose at all.

Every day HRC's attempts to make headway in this personal glorification brings more disrespect for a once proud name. I wont recite todays sad tries, but you know them. I'm sure you winced, or in anger seeking vengeance for her loss, secretly goad her on.

Please, you know its over, you know she cant do anything but harm America. Stop feeding the fantasy.


by inexile on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 07:27:29 PM EST

Re: Clinton's Path (none / 0)

I disagree profoundly.  North Carolina matters only if one follows the Howard Dean reconstruction of the Democratic Party nomination process.

At any earlier time, the Clinton big state wins--including the inevitable Pennsylvania--would have already secured for her the nomination, by virtue of winner-take all.  That is how it should be still, because the Electoral College remains largely winner-take-all and does not have caucuses.

North Carolina is a very reliably Red State, as is much of the South, the Mountain States and Midwestern column from the Dakotas on down.  And these are the regions in which Obama has best prevailed.

Whereas the reliably blue states and the most recent key bell-weathers, like Ohio and Florida, are very much Clinton's terrain.

So, to argue that Senator Clinton needs to do well in reliably Red North Carolina is only to advance the Dean-Obama argument that delegates, and not electability through the Electoral College, matter.

I believe that Senator Clinton would in fact carry Arkansas and Florida, prevail in all traditional blue states and do quite well in Ohio as well.  She has won all these state primaries, except for Senator Obama's own Illinois.  These primary wins in the reliably blue states and key bell-weathers give her more than enough electorals to be elected President.

Now, Senator Obama's case is just the reverse.  Winning North Carolina adds just another Red State to his column.  Winning any more mountain and Dakotas-down states just adds more Red States to his column.  Obama's victories in the caucuses of Maine and Washington does not necessarily mean he would have won those states had they been primaries.  But even if so, Washington, Maine, Vermont, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Connecticut, and the like--these have been blue really since the Clinton years, but the proportion of independents and swing voters in those states hardly make them reliably blue.

The point of the above is simple.  If one adds all of the Obama primary wins, mirroring the Electoral College mold, he is no where near the presidency, even if one factors in North Carolina and the remaining states in which he is expected to prevail.

Whereas if one adds the Clinton state primary wins and adds the remaining states in which she is expected to prevail, again, following the Electoral College mold, she becomes the next President.

When Governor Bayh of Indiana made this perfectly legitimate claim--the electoral strength of the state victories should take precedence, naturally the Dean-Obama Democratic coalition balked.

What Todd and others seem to miss is that we Clinton supporters believe that reliance on Red State and "fringe" (not reliably blue) state America is not enough reason to give a candidate the nomination of the DEMOCRATIC PARTY.  Even if that candidate has won many more states, and even if that candidate (and not now considering either Michigan or Florida) currently has a popular vote lead.

The Obama folk BELIEVE they would still prevail in Senator Clinton's blue states; they BELIEVE they could put certain Red States into play.

But that is an assumption.  Polling has often led the Obama people to believe they could prevail in those reliably blue states, but, aside from Illinois, they have not.  Polling also had them much closer than actual results in Ohio and Florida--real results show that Obama did dismally in both.  

And he will do dismally in Pennsylvania--ten points would be the best he could hope for, whereas the reality is closer to fifteen or twenty.  Conservative polling firms like Rasmussen and Quinnipiac had much closer polls for Obama in Ohio on the eve of the election there--even with a concerted effort to register "Democrats for a Day"--and Clinton still won in a blow-out.

The problem with Todd's assessment is that it follows the Dean/Obama assessment.  Winning Red and Fringe State America and doing poorly in reliably Blue and key bell-weather America is perfectly fine if one has the most delegates, and a popular lead.

Sadly, that does not mirror the reality of the Electoral College.

What in fact is being said by the Obama proponents is that the candidate of Red and Fringe state America should in fact represent the Democratic Party, even if he owes his wins in those states to scores of independents and Republican cross-overs.

This is the most blatant hijacking of a major party in history.  Red and Fringe State America are expected to play a bigger role in nominating a Democrat than reliably Blue and Bell-weather America.

Many party faithful, like myself and my family, representing generations of inveterate Democrats who have never voted any other way, simply cannot now vote for Obama.

We love our party's only twice-elected-since Franklin and Eleanor Roosevelt--President and First Lady Bill and Hillary Clinton.  We take pride in their longest peacetime reign of prosperity.

The Obama minions--the scores he has brought along "from the other side," are asking that we hate them, just as they do.

No thank you.

After this year, if Obama is the nominee, not only will myself and my entire family vote for John McCain, but we will leave the "Democratic Party" as well.

Whatever it is now, it is not the party we were heretofore always proud to be a part of.  Even in the worst of presidential losses, our Conventions took pride in honoring our past leaders.

But that party is no more.  The Howard Dean Party has trashed our former President and First Lady.

Were this the MSM, of course--trashing the Clintons is what they do best.  Were this from Roger Alies or Karl Rove, well, alright, naturally.  Or talking heads like Matthews and Williams and Russert.

But trashing the Clintons--as racists, liers, thieves, perverts--from pro-Obama "Democratic Party" delegates?

No thanks.  Obama is a no-sale in my native Ohio, the most reliable bell-weather of the past one hundred years.

He just never fooled enough of us.  If the Clintons are to be trashed in what was once the Democratic Party, why should us Clinton supporters (the most reliable base) of that party now stay with it?

I feel that Senator Clinton and her husband have a most compelling reason to leave it should she not be nominated--the disenfranchisement of the millions of voters in both Michigan and Florida.

And she would have a most compelling reason to run independently.  She would easily best Ross Perot's numbers--and her scores of supporters would be there for her in the fall.

Which is why I believe no scenario from the blogosphere and the MSM would stop her.

One way or another, she will astonish pollsters and pundits--much as did her husband before her--and prevail.

Obama may have the lion's share of pundits, pollsters, newspapers, broadcast media, blogosphere, donor lists, and the Howard Dean machine on his side.

Whereas we have the Clintons.  This extraordinary power couple, survivors of Ken Starr panels, Right WIng hate groups, and Impeachment, always end up leaving their nay-sayers in the dust.

After what the Clintons have endured, being behind by a hundred or so delegates is child's play.

That is why they are so hated.  They endure and triumph.

We bedrock Democrats have the Clintons.  And that is all we need.


by lambros on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 07:46:41 PM EST

If it helps you sleep at night... (2.00 / 1)

keep repeating that. But in the real world Democrats vote for Republicans all the time. Ever hear of Reagan Democrats? They are real. They will vote for their local Democratic Congress-critter and vote for McCain. How do you think Democratic senators or governors get elected in states that will never vote for a Democrat for President? On the flip-side we had a Republican governor for 12 years here in NY, but the state voted each time for the Dem. for president.

Maybe on planet Obama all voters vote straight ticket, but on planet Earth they do not.

If you want to say they aren't really Democrats that's fine. Whatever. But it will not change the outcome of the election.


by ineedalife on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 08:33:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Crystal balls (none / 0)

What I should have said is that no-one turns up on sites like this one who is a real Democrat and would honestly vote for McCain over Obama

Excuse me, but why do you presume to speak for everyone who turns up on sites like this one?


by He Who Must Not Be Named on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 10:10:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Maybe (none / 0)

because they are responding to someone who is doing exactly the same thing...

Are you going to ask the first poster the same question?


by Nazgul35 on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 09:15:38 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton's Path (none / 0)

Lambros-
I like the fact that your pro-Clinton.  But vote for Hillary because of her policies, not because Obama "never fooled you" or your fellow Ohioans.  What are you implying?  I admire the heck out of the guy. How is he fooling me?
by cwsaterfield on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 08:36:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton's Path (none / 0)

Wow. That's just so sad.

You hate Dean because of the way he led your party to congressional victories or something? You hate Obama because he seeks to be president of all 50 states, not just 10-11 of them? I guess it must be flattering if you happen to live in one of those 10 states, but still: sad.

You think that Clinton's 51% victories ought hand her all the delegates in a winner-take-all attitude, and that this signifies how strong a contestant she is?

Lame.


by Aris Katsaris on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 11:35:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton's Path (none / 0)

And if her rival was John Edwards or some other Dem. candidate, do you think the trashing would be any less? Actually, one thing we could all probably agree on is that Obama, for the most part, has taken the high road with her.

You want to see "real ugly"? Just wait and see if Hillary wins the nomination.

Get over the pettiness and ugliness of the nomination process. It will never change. And don't be so naive to think that our beloved Clintons don't have some major skeletons. More than half of Dems polled don't trust her - what does that tell you?

In case you haven't heard, our planet is in dire straits. Voting Republican for whatever reason (including being pissy that your candidate didn't win) simply precipitates that demise. Since we have a chance for Dem majorities across the board, I'd vote for Pee Wee Herman if he was the Dem candidate. Chances are that anyone's policiies would be superior to McCain's.


by desertjedi on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 01:05:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

PPP's "universe' (none / 0)

"voted in the 2004 primary, 2006 primary, or 2006 general."

PPP's "universe' omits those not old enough to vote in 2006, so they could be undercounting Obama's support.




Democratic Candidate, US Senate, Wisconsin 2012
by benmasel on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 08:12:19 PM EST

Re: PPP's "universe' (none / 0)

 yeah, the exclusion of those 18 & 19 year olds is clearly fatal.  The NC primary is over finals/the beginning of summer break--I am not sure how that will affect student turnout.


by hctb on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 08:45:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Iowa was over break too. (none / 0)

It's not just students voting this year, younger folks not in school are showing in record numbers. MySpace effect?




Democratic Candidate, US Senate, Wisconsin 2012
by benmasel on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 09:17:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton's Path To The Nomination May Run Throu (2.00 / 1)

Where does this 'stupid Howard Dean is the devil' mentality come from? lambros seems to think that Howard Dean reconstructed the Democratic nomination process. He is only one a a numberless horde.

Fact: Bill Clinton has been the titular head of the Democratic Party since 1992. The Clintons have had more power to shape the nominating process than anybody else in the party for a generation.

Query:  When did Sen. Clinton start complaining about procedural problems with the system her husband had such a hand in creating?
Answer: Not until her incompetent campaign had her losing a long string of contests she would have won with a minimally competent campaign.

Fact:  Howard Dean was made head of the DSC over the strenuous objection and active opposition of the Clintons.  Surrogates such as Carville were absolutely vile in their opposition.

Opinion: Ever since Dean became the lead of the DNC, the Clinton camp has waged an active war of attrition against him. Even though his 50-state strategy has already proven itself, the Clintons have undercut it.

Aside: This site used to ring with loud support for the 50-state effort. What has changed is not the validity of the approach, but who has assumed primary authorship at the site.

Further aside:  The 50-state strategy has always been about building party organizations at the state and local level. Its payoff should keep developing in election after the election, unless opponents take over and force the party back to the Clinton 11-state strategy.

Conclusion: So, if you want to talk about Dean as the bad guy in creating the 2008 delegate selection process, spell it out. What rule changes did Dean insist upon that somehow made the process unfair. But when you do it, please be honest enough not to just look at every situation where Clinton has lost and then search for a corresponding rule change. Do an honest evaluation.

Until then, quit scapegoating Dean.


by anoregonreader on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 08:34:01 PM EST

Re: Clinton's Path To The Nomination May Run Throu (none / 0)

Ditto!

On the real, well said.


by cwsaterfield on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 08:37:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton's Path To The Nomination May Run Throu (none / 0)

The party chair is only one of a "numberless horde"?  WTF?


by Alice in Florida on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 10:51:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Yes (none / 0)

a Committee of DNC members came up with the plan and  it was voted on by all the DNC members representative of every state and protectorate...

SO it wasn't all down to Dean...he was just left the shity job of enforcing the half-assed plan.


by Nazgul35 on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 09:18:45 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton's Path To The Nomination May Run (none / 0)

One problem with this analysis: Hillary doesn't have a "path to the nomination" that runs through any state.  Her only path is to smear Obama so badly that he can't possibly beat McCain in the fall.  Then, perhaps the supers will nominate her.  However, even that is a long shot.  I think people will be so pissed off at her by the time she's done that they would nominate a party favorite like Al Gore instead.  Either way, Hillary won't be President.  


by TonyaHardingOption on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 08:40:14 PM EST

Re: Clinton's (2.00 / 1)

Quit blaming Hillary. Obama has destroyed himself alone. He's the one that has made poor judgement after poor judgement. I do agree that he will lose to McCain but not because of anything Hillary has done. He'll lose because of his own poor decisions.


No longer a Democrat, now proudly an independent voter!
by Ga6thDem on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 09:49:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

What I dislike Hillary for is building up McCain (none / 0)

Yeah, there's all this crap about experience this and turn the page that, but there's no excuse for building up the current Republican opponent.


by Timetheos on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 11:53:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton's Path (none / 0)

(After this year, if Obama is the nominee, not only will myself and my entire family vote for John McCain, but we will leave the "Democratic Party" as well.)

lambros
dont let the door hit you on the ass on the way out.

What kind of dem are you oh wait the repub kind. Would you go on record saying 100 years in iraq is a good idea. Or hey lets give a bunch of very rich people tax brakes. sounds great, right? No I doubt you would say that.

If obama said he was dodging sniper fire and that turned out to be a lie what do you think would happen?
Once I had a person pull a gun on me I will remember that for the rest of my life. So I think if I had to run from a plane dodging sniper fire. That memory would stick around too.

She lied can we agree with this. I thought she was much cooler after I heard that. Too bad it was a bunch of BS....

And IF she has all this experence why the lies. Why?
Any Hill fans want to answer?  


by goalie40 on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 10:13:59 PM EST

after win in PA, NC will be hers (none / 0)

just wait, no point to talk about NC before PA votes


Landslide of lies
by engels on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 11:07:59 PM EST

Re: after win in PA, NC will be hers (none / 0)

Yes, North Carolina voters will look to Pennsylvania just like South Carolina voters looked to New Hampshire...


by Onward Virginia Democrats on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 11:45:53 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Hillary could use a cool tune like this (none / 0)

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/3 /25/175957/185/1007/484120

And it is a lot better than "Raining McCains"


by Timetheos on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 11:49:19 PM EST

Clinton has a path? (none / 0)

News to me...

Lies about her experience that is the cornerstone of her campaign, compares Wright to David Duke, Carville compares her to Jesus, the campaign has a double standard for superdelegates who don't endorse her, can't have a race where she gets less than 62% of the vote to over take BHO in the popular vote...yea, she has a real path allright.


by edhula3 on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 09:55:02 AM EST


You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.