Is The Obama Inevitability Campaign Backfiring?

by Todd Beeton, Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 10:15:31 PM EST

Hillary Clinton is clearly winning the message war here. On the campaign trail in Indiana today, responding to questions about Sen. Patrick Leahy's call for her to drop out of the race, Hillary Clinton framed her staying in the race as letting voters' "voices be heard."

From The AP:

"There are millions of reasons to continue this race: people in Pennsylvania, Indiana and North Carolina, and all of the contests yet to come," Clinton told reporters Friday. "This is a very close race and clearly I believe strongly that everyone should have their voices heard and their votes counted." [...]

"I believe a spirited contest is good for the Democratic Party and will strengthen the eventual nominee," she said. "We will have a united party behind whomever that nominee is. ... I look forward to campaigning over the next several months."

And as if to prove her point, look at how the AP describes the crowds at her campaign events today:

If Hillary Rodham Clinton is feeling heat from pundits and party elders to quit the race and back Barack Obama, you'd never know it from her crowds, energy level and upbeat demeanor on the campaign trail. [...]

Traveling across Indiana, the former first lady was greeted by large, enthusiastic audiences who roared their approval at her proposals to help fix the state's economic challenges.

At events here and in North Carolina on Thursday, Clinton raised the issue of whether she should quit the race, only to have it firmly batted down by her supporters.

This new Obama inevitability narrative is clearly giving the media a new lens through which to cover Clinton's campaign, all to her benefit. Clinton is also using it to cast herself as the fighter, the little guy against the forces that want to keep her down.

In Hammond, she compared the state's struggling steel industry to her own efforts to fight the odds.

"I know a little bit about comebacks," she said to cheers. "I know what it's like to be counted down and counted out. But I also know there is nothing that will keep us down if we are determined to keep on."

And she is using it to fuel a new fundraising ask of $3million by Monday night.

Have you noticed the pattern?

Every time our campaign demonstrates its strength and resilience, people start to suggest we should end our pursuit of the Democratic nomination.

Those anxious to force us to the sidelines aren't doing it because they think we're going to lose the upcoming primaries. The fact is, they're reading the same polls we are, and they know we are in a position to win.

In three days, we're facing a critical March filing deadline -- another chance to show the strength of our campaign. Let's take these three days to make something absolutely clear: we aren't going to simply step aside. You and I are going to keep fighting for what we believe in, and together, we're going to win.

Every time we are challenged to prove the strength and durability of our appeal to voters, we meet our goals. We did it in New Hampshire, we did it on February 5, and we did it again this month in Texas and Ohio.

Something tells me we won't be hearing anymore calls for Clinton to step out of the race from Obama surrogates any time soon.




Tags: 2008 presidential election, democratic nomination, hillary clinton, barack obama (all tags)

Display:
Permalink :: 209 Comments :: Post a Comment


Re: Is The Obama Inevitability Campaign Backfiring (1.75 / 4)

Is there any poll evidence of any backfiring?

In any case, isn't it time to finish this? The final result seems clear so why postpone the inevitable?


by GT on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 10:18:10 PM EST

Re: Is The Obama Inevitability Campaign Backfiring (none / 0)

Even Ralph Nader is jumping in on the act, defending Hillary's right to be a spoiler!

http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/3/28/2054 38/971
by xtrarich on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 10:35:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

The fat lady is singing if Nader... (2.00 / 5)

...is telling Hillary to stick it out.


by Hesiod Theogeny on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 10:42:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The fat lady is singing if Nader... (2.00 / 2)

truest thing in this thread


by wasder on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 10:46:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Is The Obama Inevitability Campaign Backfiring (2.00 / 4)

See, that's the real difference between Leahy's comments and the old inevitability narrative that Clinton's team pushed is that we actually have results, and while not every election is done, it's pretty easy to figure out what the end result is going to be from this point. It's like when a football game's in the fourth quarter, two minutes left, and one team is up by 35. Yeah, there's still a chance that they could lose, but it's pretty damn unlikely. With something as important as a Presidential election, I understand (particularly after the 2000 debacle) the virtue of holding off on calling a race until it's absolutely certain. But this isn't really as close as a lot of people here wish it was. Inevitable? No. Pretty damn likely and almost statistically certain? Well, yeah. But dare to dream, etc.
by Jay R on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 10:36:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Is The Obama Inevitability Campaign Backfiring (2.00 / 1)

Um, the Colts beat the Patriots under conditions similar to those and won the Superbowl. Not to mention the success of another Manning against the inevitability train of the Patriots in 2007.

Hoosiers know it ain't over until the clock strikes zero.

Perhaps Hillary will become an honorary Manning (though I think they are Republicans, but that might be just a predilection for flags.)  


by hctb on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 10:48:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Is The Obama Inevitability Campaign Backfiring (2.00 / 1)

The Patriots were the prohibitive favorites going in. Not exactly the Obama of this analogy...and there's a HUGE difference between going into the 4th quarter of a game up 35 and going into it up 7-3. But nice Hail Mary.
by Jay R on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 11:20:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Is The Obama Inevitability Campaign Backfiring (none / 0)

You ignored the first segment of his example. He was referring to the '06 AFC title game, where 3.5 point favorite Indy overcame a 21-3 deficit to the Patriots late in the second quarter to pull it out 38-34.

And that's not a terrible reference in terms of odds. When NE led 21-3 its win expectancy on the market sites was roughly the same as Obama's now, above 80%. In contrast, your 35 point late 4th quarter gap is absurdly high. That's an out price, and Obama is hardly an out price.

The comparisons fail in terms of time and variables. Obama's lead at this point is actually more decisive than the 80/20 indication on market sites. Put everything in a vacuum and obviously he's more than 80/20. But unlike a football game where everything will unfold in front of you in a half hour or so, more or less antiseptic, there are exponentially more variables in several months of political fray.

That's the same principle on future wagers. Tiger Woods, for example, is about even money to win the '08 Masters. The damn thing is two weeks away so almost every pratfall has been avoided.. When prices are set months in advance obviously the astute speculators won't jump on low odds when Tiger could break an ankle in a freak accident, or be off his best form heading to Augusta. You get better odds early but must avoid some annoying months/weeks, and that's similar to Obama right now.


by Gary Kilbride on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 12:44:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Is The Obama Inevitability Campaign Backfiring (2.00 / 1)

Not the same thing. In sports, a team in that position has the ability to win at any time based entirely on their own strategy and skill. There is a degree of luck involved, but there is a reason that comebacks are fairly routine and scores go back and forth in every single game.

Politics don't work like that. Hillary can't just hit a home run and win this thing. It's not in her control, it's in the hands of the fans.


"Hey, check it out. You just had yourself a glue OD. So you're learning another lesson. Don't do too much glue, or your night sucks."
by vcalzone on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 09:19:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Is The Obama Inevitability Campaign Backfiring (none / 0)

Oh, you had to bring up the AFC title game too..  ouch.  Pats fan here.  With no faith in inevitability trains, for sure!  [I hope those guys can maybe enjoy playing football again?  I guess that's not the Belichick way..]


by daria g on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 02:58:39 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Is The Obama Inevitability Campaign Backfiring (none / 0)

How's it similar??? What? Manning was telling a bunch of desperate lies while Tom Brady was spreading a message of hope.  then suddenly video tapes of his pastor came out and fox news replayed them over and over.  Nonetheless, his poll numbers rebounded quickly back to the levels they were before the tapes?  


by itsobamastupid on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 03:40:02 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Is The Obama Inevitability Campaign Backfiring (2.00 / 1)

Field goals do not matter now. It's hail mary time and it will take more than one, many more than one.


by Tunk on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 10:57:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Up by 35, my ass (2.00 / 7)

Hey.  You Obama folks need to LEARN TO DO THE MATH!  (Pardon the shouting, but I'm half-deaf from being shouted at about the math so long. . . .)

According to CNN:

Obama 1625 delegates
Clinton 1486 delegates

Multiply each of those number by .014, which is a number I pulled out of my ass to get a footbally-sounding score--my point remains the same whatever number you choose--and the score is:

Obama 23, Clinton 21

What point in the game are we at?  Well, you could go by time, since we are currently about 2-2/3 months from Iowa and 2-1/3 months from whatever the last state is (I disremember but I do recall it's about June 7).  In that case there's about 10 minutes left in the 3rd quarter.

Or go by the number of states left, 10 out of 50, and that gives you 12 minutes left in the 4th quarter.  Count Florida and Michigan and there's about 14:30 left in the 4th quarter.  Throw in the undecided SDs and we're indubitably back in the 3rd quarter.

So, down 23-21 with at least 12 minutes left, whaddaya do, quit?  I'll tell you one GD thing, if my candidate wanted to frickin QUIT in a situation like this, she sure wouldn't be my candidate.  Quittin' time it absolutely is not.


by Trickster on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 11:21:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Up by 35, my ass (2.00 / 2)

and except for the fact that there are only a few opportunities left for Hillary to make a play, and that there is essentially no way short of a major, MAJOR, oh-my-god-he-killed-a-baby-during-a-gay- orgy-with-Spitzer scandal, you need to adjust your projection to fit with the realities of the situation. If you want to think of it as the 3rd quarter (given that based on the DELEGATES REMAINING, which is a much more sensible measure than months elapsed, there's about 13 minutes and change left in play, that's a bit generous) that's fine, but touchdowns now only count for about .25 points, and she has bad field position for scoring 9 unanswered. The deficit is just too great. In politics as in war, the greatest leaders are frequently the ones who know how to leave a fight, and live to fight. Right now, she could end up the Senate Majority Leader (which is I think the actual message Leahy was conveying with his remarks--a subtle offer of a leadership post), the presumptive 2012 nominee if Obama loses, or even a viable 2016 nominee if he wins (she'd still be younger than McCain is now, and would have gained leadership experience and possibly executive experience if she ran for NY Gov in the interim). I understand the glorious myth of Thermopoli and all that, but what exactly does your Leonidas expect to gain by fighting to the last in this battle?
by Jay R on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 11:32:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Let's abandon the football analogy (2.00 / 4)

Because it's not a football game.  I just went with it in that first post to put the stomp-down on another overwrought demand for Clinton to quit, which that most assuredly was.

Here's the real argument: the future is the future.  We are a long, long way short of 2025 for either candidate.  The 700+ superdelegates can vote any which way they please depending on the run of news and momentum over the next few months.  There are nearly 600 delegates left to be chosen in primaries.  The fate of Florida and Michigan is totally up in the air.

You have NO IDEA what is going to happen in the world over the next 3-5 months; one thing, though, that is likely to happen--it would be certain to happen but for a certain in-the-bag aspect to much of the MSM--is the continued vetting of Obama, a process that has much unfolding to do.  Look at what has happened to his favorables over the last month; can he survive if that bleeding continues?

Win North Carolina and Indiana and then it's over. Or make PA close, IN a toss-up and win NC by double-digits, and then it's over.  Otherwise, there's plenty of reason to continue.

Listen.  If it were really over, it would be obvious to everybody, and you would only need to say it a time or two, not every goddam day for weeks on end.  It's really getting tiresome, because the not-so-sub-rosa message is that Clinton supporters are either too stupid to understand reality or too selfish to care about the impact of their actions.  

So i'm getting damn tired of hearing about it.  Respectfully, please shut up about this.


by Trickster on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 11:48:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Amen (none / 0)

If it's so damned inevitable, why the panic?

Let the process play out.


by OtherLisa on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 11:53:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Amen (none / 0)

Let's not be disingenuous here.
Assuming it is inevitable, then there's a very good reason (assuming one's chief concern is a Democratic victory) for not wishing to simply "Let the process play out." and you well know it; or if you don't, you must be one of the very few people posting here who lack the insight to have figured it out.
by greeseyparrot on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 10:08:17 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Let's abandon the football analogy (none / 0)

Trickster--fair enough. you establish some reasonable thresholds for whether Clinton remains viable. I agree that if Obama is the presumed nominee he should win NC and IN. I think he will and I hope he will but if he doesn't she has a rationale to stay in.


by wasder on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 12:15:00 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Let's abandon the football analogy (none / 0)

Neither candidate can win via the primaries. This is a fact. SDs will decide.


by nellre on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 01:25:23 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Let's abandon the football analogy (2.00 / 1)

Respectfully, no.  I don't think the sub-rosa is that you're too selfish to care, but that the only strategy through which Clinton can maintain the veneer of viability is to bank on Obama's implosion.  The problem is that provides a clear incentive for her and her surrogates to promote such an implosion.

Vetting is good, but once a fact about a candidate is out and the other candidate tries to continually use it to denigrate or impugn the other candidate, you've passed vetting and entered smearing.  What Hillary did with Richard Mellon Scaife wasn't vetting--it was smearing.  She has no other strategy left than to smear.  

If that's how you want us to finish the nominating contest and move into the general--with an arsenal of negative attacks from Democrats ready-to-use in McCain's media shop--then that's fine.  I don't think that's selfish, but I do think it's incredibly short-sighted.  But if what Hillary and her surrogates say and do now becomes the vehicle through which McCain attacks Obama in the general, then I'll consider that a net loss for the party.


by Jay R on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 12:47:59 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Let's abandon the football analogy (none / 0)

Obama has spent the entire campaign smearing Hillary and she's been the good Dem. She's been accused of racism and all sorts nasty stuff that has nothing to do with anything she's done. There's Obama using a Drudge story, and a Novak column against her. I say she should clobber him with every bit of mud she's got - I've never seen a Dem asking for it like Obama.

I'm proud of hillary and the campaign she's run - not perfect but at least not nearly as ugly and futile as Obama's.

She has to stay in the race because a lot of us won't vote for president if she's forced out.


by Little Otter on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 02:33:46 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Let's abandon the football analogy (2.00 / 2)

Soo.... She's not responsible for anything she's been accused of, and Obama is 100% responsible for everything he's been accused of. Are you 5 or something? Do you see the world in those kinds of black and white terms? And are you really going to ignore the long history of dirty campaigning on the part of Hillary's people?

Don't know what you're going to do if she stays out, but don't pretend it's out of your hands like you're Pontius Pilate, that's all on you. All the consequences that occur from another Republican administration, that blood is on your hands.


"Hey, check it out. You just had yourself a glue OD. So you're learning another lesson. Don't do too much glue, or your night sucks."
by vcalzone on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 09:24:06 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Let's abandon the football analogy (2.00 / 2)

please tell me you don't honestly believe this.

and if she's not smeared him in any way, and she's been the "good dem" then why do you propose she clobber him with every bit of mud she's got?

your reality needs some tweaking.


!
by alex100 on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 10:03:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Up by 35, my ass (none / 0)

And this is interesting: Latecomers get more delegate sway Didn't know about this.
by fredster on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 02:51:35 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Trickster's Football Analogy (2.00 / 1)

Trickster - Here's the problem. In football, you can throw a long pass and pick up 7 points in a few seconds. Then you can recover a fumbled kickoff and do it again, and so on. In baseball, you can score 8 runs with two outs in the bottom of the 9th.

But the democrats have set up their system in a way that rules out Hail Mary passes and bases loaded grand slams. If a narrow victory in a primary gave you all the delegates, Hillary could run the table, but just winning, even by 10% or 20%, doesn't net enough delegates to turn it around.

That's why Hillary looked so inevitable in 2007. She had such big leads in the Super Tuesday states that she would have had an insurmountable lead, just as Obama does now.

And Hillary didn't really screw up either. In all those early debates, she just sat back and looked presidential while everyone else struggled to seem relevant.

What happened was that Obama had a phenomenal game plan. He had everything mapped out - setting up the organization in each state, the internet fund-raising, how to work the caucuses ... all of that. His campaign has been like google - smart, clean, and a step ahead.

That's why Obama would make such a phenomenal president - he's really good at accomplishing complex goals. He's really good at thinking ahead. And the best thing is that's he's on our side, so why don't we be on his side too and we can start to undo some of the damage that's been done in the last 30 years since Reagan/Bush/Clinton/Bush decided to give our country away to a bunch of corrupt corporations?


McCain housing policy shaped by lobbyist.
by obsessed on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 03:13:36 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I'm just not on the field here (none / 0)

In this game where there's some entity called a "Reagan/Bush/Clinton/Bush."  In my world that grouping would only be found at a funeral.


by Trickster on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 05:58:46 AM EST
[ Parent ]

do you have health insurance? (none / 0)

The rapid increases actually got worse from 92-2000, as did many other corporate deregulation atrocities.

What I'm saying is that the war on the middle class has continued unabated under Reagan, Bush, Clinton and Bush - it's been a corporate feeding frenzy throughout and I have little faith than another Clinton is going to stop the trend. Don't get me wrong - I'll the first one in line to vote for her instead of McCain for a whole host of important reasons, but there's no doubt in my mind that when it comes to the corporations versus us, she's with them, not us.

I don't care what her "plan" says - I care what she did when she was in power. The proof is in the pudding.

POLL: Do you mydd folks:

1. not listen to Thom Hartmann?

  1. listen but don't agree?
  2. don't remember getting screwed by corporate deregulation from 1992 to 2000?
  3. still live with your parents?


McCain housing policy shaped by lobbyist.
by obsessed on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 08:03:39 AM EST
[ Parent ]

What was it you didn't like? (2.00 / 1)

The peace or the prosperity?

Did you not like it when America was respected abroad?  Did you just hate it when Clinton got a 10-minute standing ovation when he spoke at the United Nations?

Or was it the longest peacetime expansion since WWII?  The affordable homes?  Historically low unemployment figures?  Dramatic income gains cutting across all levels of income, and not just for the rich?  Highest median income ever, measured for inflation?  The 22 million new jobs, more than Reagan and both Bushes all combined over their five terms?  Balancing the budget sure sucked, didn't it?  The 26% reduction in child poverty, that was terrible, right?  The Family and Medical Leave Act, know about that?  If you have a job, your right to take time off when you or a family member is sick instead of getting fired, that's just awful, isn't it?  Biggest education-spending increases since the 60s, you didn't like that?  The Brady Bill?  Assault-weapon ban? Stopping genocide in eastern Europe?  Lastig peace in the centuries-old conflict in Northern Ireland?  Almost achieving peace in the Middle East and only failing because the clock ran out on him?

As for deregulation, the worst deregulation of the entire Clinton Presidency was the Private Securities Investors Litigation Reform Act of 1995, which was the only bill of his entire Presidency that was passed over his veto.

To me, when you lump Clinton in with those Republican Presidents, that's just lunacy.  His policies and his results were starkly different.  The government ran like a spinning top under his hand because, unlike Republican Presidents, he actually believed in government and troubled himself to study methods for running it more efficiently.

Back to foreign policy, the subject of this diary, and I'll end with a couple of appraisals of Clinton the peace-maker, from heads of foreign goverments with whom Clinton negotiated toward Mid-East peace:

Benjamin Netanyahu:  But I am today brimming with some confidence--and not overconfidence--simply because we have overcome tremendous challenges and achieved success for both sides--not at the expense of one side and the benefit of the other, but success and advantage and progress for both sides. And that fills me with the confidence that we are able to tackle the larger challenges that still await us and that still await our two peoples.

There are so many people that I could thank in the American delegation. It's a wonderful one, headed by the Secretary of State and Sandy Berger and George Tenet and the team that was there--Dennis and Gamal--(laughter)--a provider of cigars--(laughter)--and good humor--and so many others.

But I want to especially thank President Clinton. He is--if I can borrow a cliche--he is a warrior for peace. I mean, he doesn't stop. He has this ability to maintain a tireless pace and to nudge and prod and suggest. and use a nimble and flexible mind to truly explore the possibilities of both sides, and never just of one side. That is a great gift, I think a precious and unique one. And it served us well.

King Hussein of Jordan:  Mr. President, I have had the privilege of being a friend of the United States and Presidents since late President Eisenhower. Throughout all the years that have passed, I have kept in touch. But on the subject of peace, the peace we are seeking, I have never--with all due respect and all the affection that I held for your predecessors--have known someone with your dedication, clear-headedness, focus and determination to help resolve this issue in the best possible way. (Applause.)

Mr. President, permit me to say what I feel--I was mentioning it more than once in the last few days. You have the tolerance and the patience of Job, and you are the subject of our admiration and respect. And we hope that you will be with us as we see greater successes and as we help our brethren and our friends move ahead towards a better tomorrow.


by Trickster on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 03:02:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What was it you didn't like? (none / 0)

That was a really great reply - much better than the original post - and one which should convince any Obama supporter to support Hillary over McCain if it comes to that. I was already convinced - as I said - but you've inspired me to be more passionately convinced.

You've done an excellent job of explaining how Clinton was different and better than Reagan and the Bushes. However, you've failed to address the fundamental and endemic ways in which the Clintons are not different and better than their 3 illustrious corporation-friendly colleagues.

POINT BY POINT

- I liked the peace. The prosperity ... not so much. My stock portfolio prospered, but the cost of living went through the freaking roof. And don't cite me the inflation numbers. I'm not interested in the government's measure of inflation. I happen to live in this country - inflation is my native language and I understand it intimately. My health insurance went from about $100/month to about $500/month. The cost of food, housing, services and non-Chinese goods went up by many orders of magnitude. It become nearly impossible for any young person to ever buy a house (without inheriting one) or to go to college (without going deeply into debt). The cost of what I had to pay to every deregulated industry skyrocketed - utilities, telephone, cable, banking, etc. Then there was NAFTA.

-"Affordable Housing". I live in California. You obviously don't. The cost of renting or buying more than tripled under Clinton. It became impossible for anyone without an inheritance or a 6-figure salary to buy a house.

-Middle East peace talks. Like Hillary's health care initiative, the proof is in the pudding.

-Deregulation. My friend, you have no idea. You really need to study Thom Hartmann. He has a radio show, a website and a number of great books that - based on what you've written above - will absolutely and conclusively change your entire outlook on politics and economics. I've mentioned Hartmann various times as troll-bait and I've been pleased and relieved that so far, no one on mydd.com has tried to make a Clinton versus Hartmann argument. Unless you're a troll, there's none to be made. Hartmann's indictment of corporate deregulation is deeply and profoundly devastating.

-Cuba. Clinton signed the horrendous Helms-Burton act - tragic.

In summary, the Clintons are much better than the Republicans, but when push comes to shove, they're fundamentally aligned with the corporations, not the middle class. You have my vote for Hillary should she be nominated, but you haven't explained to my satisfaction why you're so passionate about a candidate who has proven by example and experience to fail to fight on our side against the corporations, and to fail so totally in the cases where she did appear to take up the fight.

TRICKSTER: Let's be fair. I am absolutely livid at Hillary Clinton right now but I give you my solemn oath that I will vote for her if she's the nominee. In return, I ask you to read Thom Hartmann with an open mind.


McCain housing policy shaped by lobbyist.
by obsessed on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 04:31:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Up by 35, my ass (none / 0)

Up by 35? More like up by 65. The proportional awarding of delegates coupled with the awarding of extra delegates to Democratic congressional districts will hurt Clinton if she wins, as expected, in Pennsylvania.

The only rule applicable to all contests this cycle - primary and caucus - is "don't get blown out." Obama lost Ohio by ten but Hillary's edge in delegates was not signifiantly more than Obama's. All Obama needs in Pennsylvania is something just above 40% to mitigate the awarding of delegates. If he wins in the cities, which has been typical, he will often pick up an extra delegate in Dem congressional districts.

The real problem for the Clinton campaign is that they failed to put enough boots on the ground in some of the earlier states. Her campaign should have invested enough to keep her in the low 40's in states Obama was going to win. I mostly blame her advisers for a mistake of that magnitude even though the buck technically stops with her.


by Shiloh on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 08:24:11 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Up by 35, my ass (none / 0)

Which would be fine if we're talking about football, but we aren't.  When you score a touchdown, the other team doesn't get 5 or 6 points, too, for putting up a good defense.

The very same structure that makes the number differential slight in percentage terms is the same one that makes it so hard to catch up.

If we gave New York, California, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Arkansas, Tennessee, Oklahoma, and Ohio -- Clinton's 8 biggest delegate margins -- another set of delegates to give out on top of the first one, she'd STILL be behind.


by Rorgg on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 08:27:50 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Up by 35, my ass (none / 0)

I believe you/we are using the wrong sports analogy to talk about this race. I think this is more like Bowling in that you know when you've won when the game is not over.

Now in this case, Hillary still has a mathematical shot but it would be like being in the 7th frame and needed to STRIKE OUT the rest of the frames while Obama leaves his frames open with no spares. Is it possible? Yes. It is probable? No.

I believe that Obama's win in NC will cancel out PA because his win there will be larger than Clinton's win in PA. Indiana will be close and Obama has a good chance of winning it but so does Clinton.

The rest of the states are small and they will probably split them in terms of wins so we end up were we are right now. That is why people are calling for Clinton to bow out before we all lose.

My $0.001 - ouch inflation hurts.


Obama 08!
by comingawakening on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 02:08:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Is The Obama Inevitability Campaign Backfiring (none / 0)

Unlikely?  Sure.  But that doesn't mean you end the game two minutes early.


by Blue Jean on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 12:03:14 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Is The Obama Inevitability Campaign Backfiring (none / 0)

Usually what it means is that you let the second and third stringers get some game time.  You let the first string rest for the next fight, and Majority Leader Clinton will have a hell of a lot of fights ahead if we're going to fix the mess from 8 years of neglect.


by Jay R on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 12:49:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]

A primary is not a football game. (none / 0)

If one must look to a game analogy, think of cribbage.

Does anyone imagine if the situation were reversed (in terms of lead in the popular vote, states won, and pledged delegates) that Team Clinton wouldn't be calling for her opponent to drop out "for the good of the party?"

And what of the Clinton campaign's assertion a while back that she would have the nomination sewn up by February 5th? By the same logic we're hearing now, John Edwards should have stayed in the race because dropping out when he did denies the right of those in North Carolina to have their voices heard.


by lucky monkey on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 01:07:05 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Is The Obama Inevitability Campaign Backfiring (1.75 / 4)

Well, Obama is running the campaign of Hope - Hope that your opponents quits.

If Obama is the nominee, I expect that by November, Obamaniacs will be writing diaries saying that Obama has already won the GE & that McCain should quit.

People who have drunk the Kool-Aid are in a totally different world than the rest of us.


by gaf on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 07:08:00 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Is The Obama Inevitability Campaign Backfiring (none / 0)

Actually there is and here it is:

Without coattails.....


by Pericles on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 05:28:21 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Is The Obama Inevitability Campaign Backfiring (none / 0)

In any case, isn't it time to finish this? The final result seems clear so why postpone the inevitable?

   Is that really what you want? Well, ok, then, let's look at the numbers (via The Green Papers):

   http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P08/D.phtm l

   If you look at the "alternative soft totals", which include FL and MI - which we have to, or else we lose both those states in the GE, and thereby lose to McCain - you'll see Hillary is ahead by 1 delegate.

   The popular vote totals at the left don't include them, however, so we have to add 615,000 net votes to Hillary, putting her over 500,000 votes ahead at this point.

   Hillary is heavily favored to win PA (by 15, PR (by 35 - winner take all), WV (by 30), and KY (by 15), and is statistically tied in OR and IN; given this, we can put her an (estimated) additional 100+ delegates and 1 million+ votes ahead after these primaries.

   So I ask you again: are you SURE you want Hillary to be declared the winner RIGHT NOW?

                                  SR


by SergeiRostov on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 12:02:12 AM EST
[ Parent ]

The Obama campaign and ... (2.00 / 7)

... their surrogates and supporters were hoping for a knockout blow to get Senator Clinton out of the race. It didn't work. Obama will look all the weaker when he starts losing upcoming primaries, especially Pennsylvania. Furthermore Hillary Clinton is impressing a lot of people with her toughness. Could Obama withstand the onslaught that has been heaped on Hillary? Not a chance. He is still trying to explain Reverend Wright. Obama is no match for the Republican attack machine.


by sinjin777 on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 10:26:28 PM EST

Re: The Obama campaign and ... (2.00 / 4)

Yeah, that Obama is in trouble.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/105814/Gallup -Daily-Obama-Back-Into-Lead-Democratic-R ace.aspx
"Obama's current 8-point advantage ties his largest lead of the Gallup Poll Daily tracking program, along with a 50% to 42% showing in Feb. 28-March 1 polling. Obama clearly has weathered the Wright storm, while the dark clouds have shifted to Clinton over whether she has exaggerated her foreign policy credentials. This week she has had to defend her repeated claim that she came under sniper fire while visiting Bosnia as first lady, which news video clearly disputed."


We care about politics because we know politics matters for people's lives and opportunities.
by politicsmatters on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 10:35:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Obama campaign and ... (2.00 / 1)

noise.
http://www.pollster.com/blogs/4645_plus_ or_minus_3.php
by hctb on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 10:52:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Obama campaign and ... (none / 0)

You might be right. Let's see if Obama can sustain such a lead.  You'd think the Wednesday and Thursday number have to be very strong for him to jump ahead each day so much.


We care about politics because we know politics matters for people's lives and opportunities.
by politicsmatters on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 11:08:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Obama campaign and ... (none / 0)

or the bounce Clinton got from the March 5 contests are dropping out of th sample.


by hctb on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 11:12:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Obama campaign and ... (none / 0)

What bounce?


We care about politics because we know politics matters for people's lives and opportunities.
by politicsmatters on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 12:52:03 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Obama campaign and ... (none / 0)

Just curious but have any of you folks heard about that thing...you know....it's called the....

Electoral College?

Jes askin' is all.....


by Pericles on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 05:30:28 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Obama campaign and ... (2.00 / 1)

Yes, I even wanted to go to one. But parents couldn't afford it.


by gaf on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 07:10:49 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Obama campaign and ... (none / 0)

She is knocking herself out. Have you not noticed?  She's really wants to help our great country but she fell and hit her head on the kitchen sink and has never been the same since.


by Tunk on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 11:05:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Obama campaign and ... (none / 0)

"Obama will look weaker"

That's exactly the problem. She alweays has had the ability to win some states, but she is now in the position where states don't matter, unless she runs the table scoring an average of around 70%. Obama will not be overturned by supers if he maintains his lead, but she will have hurt his campaign in the general - by ramping up his negatives (along with her own), but spending money and by letting McCain have a clear field.

For the good of the party she should show some class. If the only way she can win is to have the superdelegates overturn a six-month cross-country result then she has to figure out that either she will lose and hurt the party or win and destroy the party.


by Shiloh on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 08:31:56 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Is The Obama Inevitability Campaign Backfiring (2.00 / 3)

Once again Clinton will "win" the media narrative while Obama wins more delegates.


by dmc2 on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 10:29:45 PM EST

Re: Is The Obama Inevitability Campaign Backfiring (2.00 / 3)

National polls (Pew and Gallop) show Obama pulling significantly ahead. Hillary also sinking below 20 at Intrade. My wife said that on the View today, two of the woman hosts said they have switched from supporting Clinton to supporting Obama.
by xtrarich on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 10:39:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Intrade anyone? (2.00 / 0)

Since the Clinton supporters have such insight into reality I am sure they are putting their money where their mouth is and cashing in assets to bet at Intrade and make a fortune. If they are not then its time to face reality and stop following Clinton over the cliff. A lot of reputations are being ruined by steadfastly supporting the 2008 version of Nader.


by ImpeachBushCheney on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 02:07:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]

20 in Intrade (none / 0)

That means the money thinks she has a 20% chance.  Aren't you guys saying there's no realistic possibility at all?  Time to just quit?

I don't quit on a 20% chance to make the world a better place.  Because I don't consider the prospect of a Clinton Presidency vs an Obama--or McCain--Presidency just two sides of a coin.  I think Clinton's the most electable and I think she would be a much better President.

Besides, your bluffing your butt off.  If it was really quitting time, you wouldn't need to say it.  People aren't stupid.


by Trickster on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 06:02:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Know your Numbers (none / 0)

So how much money did you put into your Intrade account to bet on Clinton?  Can I be the counterparty?

Just so you understand the "math" at Intrade.  There is a bet that the  U.S. will go into recession in 2008.  That is at 70% even though most economists believe we are already in a recession and just need to tally up the numbers to see how bad it is.  Heck, there's only a 95% chance McCain will be the Republican nominee and a 4% chance that Gore will be the Democrat.  

To put it another way, there is only a slightly better chance that pigs will fly than that Hillary will win the nomination.


by zadura on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 02:48:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Sorry, that's just horseshit (none / 0)

If it were really true, you wouldn't have to be saying it constantly, like a mantra, for weeks.  It would be obvious.  It's not.  There are many, many ways for Clinton to win.  

And yes, I have some money on her at Intrade.

Listen to what Howard Dean said yesterday.  His interest is in insuring a fair end-game so that whoever loses doesn't feel cheated by the process.  This may seem incredible to you, but Clinton has tens of millions of die-hard adherents.  Muscle her out of the race without letting it become actually apparent that she's losing, and you will lose millions of general election votes, because people harden against you when they take things personally.

I don't see why I have to make this same argument day after day after day against you goddam buttinskies.  If you want to influence somebody's campaign, influence your own candidate's.  We Clintonites do not take your advice as being offered in good faith.  We take it as a brazen attempt to avoid a drubbing in Pennsylvania that might turn things around.


by Trickster on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 03:18:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Sorry, that's just horseshit (none / 0)

I will bet you $100,000 on an uneven pool that Barack will be the Democratic candidate for President in 2008.  That is, I will put in $80k and you put in $20k.  Whoever wins gets the whole pool.  I offer this to anybody else as well.  

No jokes.  No internet smokescreens.  Just two people making a simple bet based on their sense of the odds.


by zadura on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 05:02:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Fine (none / 0)

As long as it's monopoly money.  The only time I've ever even seen $100K was under circumstances i'd rather not discuss.


by Trickster on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 06:34:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Fine (none / 0)

OK, how about $100.  Same odds and same split.


by zadura on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 07:17:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Fine (none / 0)

I'd rather not getting into divulging my ID to somebody I don't know--no offense, please, I'm just cautious about internet stuff--when I can bet on my own without doing that. I've already sunk a little money into this--within the last 2 weeks, let me add--and I don't have an infinite limit on how much I want to put in.  Hillary just had a tough week in the press and that doesn't make me want to up my stake over what it was this time last week.

Thanks for the offer, though.  It's a fair offer.


by Trickster on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 07:37:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Is The Obama Inevitability Campaign Backfiring (2.00 / 1)

Since when does enthusiastic receptions from one's supporters mean all that much?  A friend of mine was at the last rally Edwards held, the night before he dropped out. Edwards sounded energized, said nothing about dropping out, and the crowd was fired up.


We care about politics because we know politics matters for people's lives and opportunities.
by politicsmatters on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 10:36:31 PM EST

Re: Is The Obama Inevitability Campaign Backfiring (2.00 / 2)

Candidates always say this until the moment they actually do drop out.  Look at Romney - it was "I am in this until the bitter end!" and then two days later he dropped out.  The candidates have to do that while they do one last round of fund raising  so they can pay off their campaign debt.  Who is going to give them money if they know they are about to drop out of the race?

I always wonder that - wouldn't you have been really angry if you had been the last person who had given money to Romney and an hour later he dropped out?  I'd have wanted my money back.  And it wasn't like he was poor to begin with.  Look how much money he loaned his own campaign.


by JackieinCA on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 03:28:08 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Is The Obama Inevitability Campaign Backfiring (none / 0)

Therein lies the difference with Hillary. When Hillary says she's staying in and ready to fight for us, I believe her. I believe and trust her completely. She is not a quitter. It broke my heart when that wimp assed Kerry threw in the towel a day after we voted in 04.
 Loser.
 That, my fellow Americans, is certainly NOT  Hillary.
 She is a fighter... She fights for US. That is the other difference. She is in this race for US not herself. Anyone who refutes that needs to do some serious soul searching.

Electoral college breakdown proves Obama can not win in November. McCain will definitely be the POTUS #44 only if he runs against Obama. Hillary is the only candidate running that is numerically guaranteed to win in NOV.
http://www.surveyusa.com/index.php/2008/ 03/06/electoral-math-as-of-030608-clinto n-276-mccain-262/


by naturesway on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 12:17:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Is The Obama Inevitability Campaign Backfiring (none / 0)

first nothing is guaranteed in november. just ask john kerry right down to the exit polls.

next did you actually read the link you posted. you posted the hillary/mccain matchup but had you clicked the link tot he obama match up you would see he would get more electoral votes against mcain than hilalry would.let me help you

http://www.surveyusa.com/index.php/2008/ 03/06/electoral-math-as-of-030608-clinto n-276-mccain-262/
Clinton 276, McCain 262

http://www.surveyusa.com/index.php/2008/ 03/06/electoral-math-as-of-030608-obama- 280-mccain-258/
Obama 280, McCain 258

and this was on march 6th. since than both hillary and obama have dropped in head to head polls with mccain. yesterday he even released his first general election tv ad. every time a nomination is contested that party loses in november.

so here we are with hillary and no path to the pledge delegate lead. her only chance to win the nomination is to ruin obama and they both have suffered so far in polls.


by Leftyy2k4 on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 01:00:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Joke..who is the joke on? (1.40 / 5)

Gimmie a break.  The Clinton Campaign is in the death throes but it still could be painful.  The real question is does she have a future in Democratic politics?  After she botched health care for a generation of Americans I hope the answer is no.  Only John McCain is lauugning.  


by howardpark on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 10:36:41 PM EST

Death throes (2.00 / 7)

Haven't we been hearing this for months now?


by joanneleon on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 11:05:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Death throes (2.00 / 1)

For about two months, actually. That's how long it took for her to completely throw away her position as the frontrunner. You can't tell me you aren't disappointed in the people running her campaign.


"Hey, check it out. You just had yourself a glue OD. So you're learning another lesson. Don't do too much glue, or your night sucks."
by vcalzone on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 11:30:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Death throes (2.00 / 2)

I'm disappointed in my fellow "progressives" and "liberals" and the way they have treated her.  I expected the media to pile on, but crazy me, I also thought the "liberal" blogosphere would fight the media conventional wisdom instead of going right along with it.  


by daria g on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 03:09:53 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Death throes (none / 0)

So it's a vast left-wing conspiracy?


by Shaun Appleby on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 03:17:45 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Death throes (none / 0)

remember bill and his philandering was a right wing conspiracy right up till the blue dress.

yes the wife of the last democratic president has been battered by the party? why cause they didn't vote for her? what a joke.


by Leftyy2k4 on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 01:03:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Death throes (none / 0)

Congratulations on your wit.


by daria g on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 02:56:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Death throes (none / 0)

No we've been hearing it for YEARS about the Iraq "insurgents".


by Justwords on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 12:08:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Is The Obama Inevitability Campaign Backfiring (2.00 / 5)

I'm giving $25 to Hillary right now. Who's with me?


by Turnpike Kid on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 10:37:23 PM EST

Re: Is The Obama Inevitability Campaign Backfiring (none / 0)

$50 for Obama and $100 for the grassroots and why doesn't she have any operation to get volunteers up to Pennsylvania?  Is it a significant state?  How much does she have to win by?


by howardpark on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 10:43:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Is The Obama Inevitability Campaign Backfiring (2.00 / 1)

She's pretty broke right now and owes over $9 million to vendors.


We care about politics because we know politics matters for people's lives and opportunities.
by politicsmatters on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 10:47:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Is The Obama Inevitability Campaign Backfiring (none / 0)

go to the website--it is right there on the front page. Same with NC.


by hctb on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 10:50:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Is The Obama Inevitability Campaign Backfiring (2.00 / 3)

She's getting volunteers in Pennsylvania and others from nearby states like NJ.


by joanneleon on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 11:08:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Is The Obama Inevitability Campaign Backfiring (none / 0)

And from New York.  I'm one of them.  Friends are flying to York and Philadelphia from California.  They're so swamped with volunteers from out of state at the Philadelphia headquarters they added a staff person just to handle those contacts.

Tell it like it is, Todd.


On to the Convention Floor!
by oh puhleeze on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 02:36:37 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Is The Obama Inevitability Campaign Backfiring (2.00 / 3)

Pardon me but she DOES have an operation to get volunteers here to Pennsylvania. As one of them, I ought to know.


Full Equality Now!
by cuppajoe on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 11:19:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Is The Obama Inevitability Campaign Backfiring (none / 0)

Look before you type. okay?
http://hillaryclinton.com/action/travel/ ?sc=3

No way. No how. No McCain. . . . . . If you can ship a job to Bangalore India, you can ship a job to Flint Michigan.
by NJ Liberal on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 09:24:26 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Is The Obama Inevitability Campaign Backfiring (none / 0)

I only give to down ticket races but I'm about this close to giving to Obama.


!
by alex100 on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 10:56:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Is The Obama Inevitability Campaign Backfiring (2.00 / 1)

My spouse and I are giving money to Obama this weekend.  We want to make sure we get in the pool from which the campaign will draw to get four people to have dinner with him.
https://donate.barackobama.com/page/cont ribute/dinner7?source=feature_dinner
We care about politics because we know politics matters for people's lives and opportunities.
by politicsmatters on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 10:49:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Is The Obama Inevitability Campaign Backfiring (2.00 / 4)

Inevitability campaign? I'd classify it more like a unity campaign.


by Hesiod Theogeny on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 10:41:32 PM EST

Re: Is The Obama Inevitability Campaign Backfiring (2.00 / 2)

Earth to Todd, come in Todd. You sound like Jerome now. What ever is actually going on, write a diary that states the opposite and then cross your fingers!


by wasder on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 10:44:00 PM EST

Re: Is The Obama Inevitability Campaign Backfiring (2.00 / 1)

Be nice. Todd has been pretty good these past months, considering. Homie is entitled to opine (especially since that's why they pay him the big bucks to begin with).
by Jay R on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 11:37:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Is The Obama Inevitability Campaign Backfiring (2.00 / 1)

Your right. Sorry Todd. You HAVE had some very good diaries recently.


by wasder on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 12:17:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Obama should treat Hillary like Mike Gravel (none / 0)

Just ignore her, and do his own thing.

Start focusing n John McCain and act like you are the nominee. If Hillary wants to keep campaigning to make herself feel better, let her. She's lost.


by Hesiod Theogeny on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 10:45:27 PM EST

Re: Obama should treat Hillary like Mike Gravel (none / 0)

No, because then she gets to blindside him with everything she's got. Her campaign will be feeding McCain's with information and vice-versa. If they aren't already doing that, they will be.

What she needs to do is realize exactly why she's fallen so far behind and start putting her country before her own ambition. Fight against McCain and do it really hard. Don't just pretend that you can put it off until after winning a nomination. Do it now and do it before he gets too far ahead and has already defined his campaign.


"Hey, check it out. You just had yourself a glue OD. So you're learning another lesson. Don't do too much glue, or your night sucks."
by vcalzone on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 11:34:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

So you expected her supporters to boo the idea (none / 0)

of her staying in?


Your old role is rapidly aging. Please get out of the new one if you can't lend a hand, for the times they are a changing.
by Travis Stark on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 10:46:50 PM EST

Re: Is The Obama Inevitability Campaign Backfiring (none / 0)

and asking for 3million by monday and getting it are different things


by wasder on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 10:48:13 PM EST

Re: Is The Obama Inevitability Campaign Backfiring (2.00 / 1)

Thank you! Just donated to Hillary again.


On to the Convention Floor!
by oh puhleeze on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 02:31:50 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Is The Obama Inevitability Campaign Backfiring (none / 0)

yup. And it also signals she's running short of money to be making a drive.

obama doesn't even have to ask.


!
by alex100 on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 10:51:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Is The Obama Inevitability Campaign Backfiring (2.00 / 3)

Obama IS inevitable.

The inevitability campaign that backfired is the Hillary campaign that promoted the concept of inevitability as a campaign strategy. And we all know how effective that strategy proved to be.
by xtrarich on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 10:49:11 PM EST

Re: Is The Obama Inevitability Campaign Backfiring (none / 0)

Ridiculous- her campaign never floated the idea of her "inevitability"- the media did. And of course the netroots.


"Who are you for? That is the wrong question. It should be who is for you?" HRC
by skohayes on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 09:10:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Is The Obama Inevitability Campaign Backfiring (2.00 / 1)

i suggest you educate yourself. many times she was asked and she said this will be over on feb 5th.

there was even a interview in dec where she said theres no way she could lose. Even I a undecided at that time shook my head and thought she was right. we all did.

ignoring her own words now and blaming the media is so old.


by Leftyy2k4 on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 01:08:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Is The Obama Inevitability Campaign (2.00 / 1)

I think some of the inevitability talk may be posturing; this is is a very,very close primary after all.  However, I know that there are people (myself included) who have held off judgment of who was going to come out the winner but who are now just plain having trouble imagining a scenario where she wins.  This is particularly in light of recent polling.  I also think he is talking about his economic plans now, well, and this is one of the pieces that I thought was missing from his campaign before.

I would be very interested in some reporting from his bus tour.  I'm not sure how much of an impact that will make in the PA results.  

One last thing, reports from the candidates' rallies and get-togethers are wonderful to read, and I hope people in the states currently preparing for primaries can write in their experiences from both candidates' tours.


by mady on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 10:54:59 PM EST

Re: Is The Obama Inevitability Campaign (2.00 / 1)

You say this is a very, very, very close primary.  I have been asking this all over the net, but how is it close?

Hillary won Ohio in what most are calling a decisive victory...yet she only gained 9 delegates out of this screwy proportional system.  

Even if she wins PA by 20, using Ohio as the standard, how can she gain more than 20 delegates?

I'm sincerely looking for a way for this to be close...but Obama is like 155 delegates ahead.  How on earth can she catch up?


by G Davis on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 12:55:24 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Is The Obama Inevitability Campaign (none / 0)

That is why Chuck Todd on MSNBC says it is really, really unlikely - I think the word he uses is improbable, but not impossible.  And Hillary supporters, you have to like him, he said she should stay in the race today:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23846166/

Though I think his reasoning is more that it is making Obama a stronger candidate than that Hillary has a realistic chance of making up the delegates. I am a numbers person.  Chuck Todd is MSNBC's numbers guy and besides the fact that everyone in the industry seems to think he is the best at knowing his numbers, he seems to be regarded as being intellectually honest.

He has been saying that she needs to win around 65% of all remaining delegates from here on out to catch up with Obama's delegate count.  So in Pennsylvania she would have to win 65 to 35 (20 points, where she is currently up 16 points per Real Clear Politics,) then go on to win NC by 20 points (where Obama is currently up by 12.7 points,) etc, through the rest of the races.  

This is why you will now have a bunch of other arguments thrown at you - popular vote, FL/MI, Big States, electoral votes, etc.  The fact of the matter is, until Obama wins half plus 1 of all of the delegates - pledged and super, there is always a chance - slim but a chance - of Hillary winning  the nomination.

It is why Huckabee stayed in the race on the Republican side until McCain won his half plus 1 of delegates.  Huckabee said he was waiting for a miracle.  Hillary is waiting for a miracle too.  And honestly, I do think it was good Huckabee stayed in until the bitter end.  But he was very careful to play the party line.  He never praised one of the democrats over McCain (by implication or mistake.)  I do think if Hillary stayed in and just watched what she (and Bill, and especially Mark Penn) said then no one would be calling for her to get out of the race.  There is just a lot of nervousness in the party due to comments made and who she has been talking to that there is going to be irreparable damage done to our eventual nominee - either because Hillary tears down Obama and makes him unelectable but he is still our nominee, or because Hillary tears down Obama and makes him unelectable and he isn't our nominee, but she so drives up her unfavorable rating to do so that she will becomes unelectable too.

And if that does happen, I think we will see the one scenario where we will be really glad we have super delegates - and the real reason we do have them.  If that happens they would, for the good of the party, vote for neither unelectable candidate.  That would then mean that neither would win on the 1st ballot and then we really would see some back room deal making going on.  I think we would then see some other candidate be put on the 2nd ballot.  Gore perhaps, or Edwards who could resume his suspended campaign.  It might take a couple of more ballots but they would elect this other candidate.

And for anyone that thinks that this is impossible, it has happened before.  The most famous example is the 1924 Democratic convention, where the nominee was elected on the 102nd ballot.


by JackieinCA on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 05:13:29 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Is The Obama Inevitability Campaign (2.00 / 1)

Wow, 1924 is NOT what I'd be looking to emulate.  This was pre-primary, and there were several candidates and a pitched battle over whether to condemn the KKK (there was no condemnation).  The compromise candidate led to a third-party Progressive candidate, and the dem party got slaughtered nationally.


by Rorgg on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 08:40:08 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Is The Obama Inevitability Campaign (2.00 / 2)

exactly. there is no election where the party had a heated contest for the nomination in modern times and that party went on to win in nov.

thats thew fear among alot of democrats not just obama supporters. i have no issue with hillary staying in it but they must both campaign against mccain and soon and not each other.

the longer this goes the less likley we win the white house in nov. regardless of nominee. thats reality and thats looking past this primary to the race ahead. thats the true prize we are all fired up about.

both obama and clinton supporters need to ask themselves could they survive 4 more years of republican rule, specially with he supreme court likely having 2 or 3 nominations.

your damn right i am worried bout losing in nov. and not cause obama can't beat mccain or hillary can't beat mccain. cause we always find a way to divide ourselves and lose when it matters. wake up people. no one cares who won the nomination come nov 6th if we lose.


by Leftyy2k4 on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 01:18:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Backfired: (2.00 / 3)

"Backers fail in pushing Clinton out,
a major political defeat for Obama:

Howard Dean gave Hillary Clinton help on Friday by telling superdelegates they can wait until July 1 to make up their minds. Al Gore seems to be in agreement, handing Barack Obama a major political defeat today. The Obama campaign launched its now-failed effort to force Clinton out of the race last week."

Alienating the millions left to vote is a huge mistake. Obama supporters are scared and I see a Clinton comeback to win this thing.


by gotalife on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 10:56:23 PM EST

Re: Backfired: (2.00 / 1)

Huh? Wasn't Hillary the one who built an entire campaign (or failed to build a winning campaign) based upon a strategy that assumed that votes after Super Tuesday would not matter?
by xtrarich on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 11:00:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Backfired: (2.00 / 2)

How is that a major defeat?

Obama full well knows that he has to waste his time with Hillary for a month or 2 more.

Once that's over, all the Hillary fans can say that they got their fair chance, and the bitterness will drain away, so that we can all get together to beat Skeletor in the fall, for the sake of the SCOTUS and so that our children will not be drafted for another idiotic war.


Hell yeah we did.
by Darknesse on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 11:02:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Backfired: (none / 0)

I didn't like the "inevitability" argument when it applied to HRC, and I don't like it applied to Obama, even though at this stage of the game it's probably the case. I think it's worth the risks to the party or our chances in November for both candidates to get as fair a chance as can be managed given the obvious clusterfks that have blighted the landscape this season.

The best chance for party unity this fall is if Hillary gets full opportunity to present her case and nobody but the sourest of sour grapes supporters can claim she was somehow shafted.


by Weirdsmobile on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 07:55:38 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Backfired: (none / 0)

Im sorry but winning PA, Kentucky, and West Virginia are not going to do it for Hillary.  


by Toddwell on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 11:03:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Backfired: (2.00 / 1)

"Alienating the millions left to vote?"  How's that?    They still get to vote.  Their votes won't change the outcome, but they won't change the outcome whether Clinton is running a negative campaign against Obama or if she's back in the Senate.  Obama has won.  Clinton doesn't have to get out, but it would be the best thing for her to do to maintain her political relevance and what's left of Bill's reputation.  


by Headlight on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 12:32:51 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Another Todd (2.00 / 3)

thinks that calls for Clinton to bow out are premature:

Todd: Clinton has made the right call
NBC's Chuck Todd says calls for her to drop out are premature

The more the pundits and the Obama camp cajole Clinton to step aside, the stronger she becomes.   Let the process continue and let the voters vote.  


by Radiowalla on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 11:06:53 PM EST

Re: Another Todd (none / 0)

He also said that if she doesn't upset him in NC it's over.  She cannot win this by simply holding serve, which is all PA will be.


by Piuma on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 11:10:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Another Todd (none / 0)

Selective listening? He said she needs to win PA & NC or IN.


by hctb on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 11:16:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Another Todd (none / 0)

"The more the pundits and the Obama camp cajole Clinton to step aside, the stronger she becomes."

Hillary is the Hulk!


by brathor on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 11:32:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Another Todd (none / 0)

I saw this on Star Trek -- she's an alien that feeds off of hate and aggression! Come on everyone, we must start laughing. Ha ha ha!


by Weirdsmobile on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 07:40:02 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Is The Obama Inevitability Campaign Backfiring (2.00 / 1)


Something tells me we won't be hearing anymore calls for Clinton to step out of the race from Obama surrogates any time soon.

Something tells me you are way off.  I expect that from now until Pennsylvania, you will see Obama roll out a couple of big endorsements per week coupled with a few name surrogates saying it's time to end it.  In the absence of other primaries, Obama's campaign is doing a brilliant job of manufacturing momentum.


by Piuma on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 11:07:41 PM EST

Re: Is The Obama Inevitability Campaign Backfiring (none / 0)

Last Friday: Richardon
This Friday: Casey

Next Friday: ???


We care about politics because we know politics matters for people's lives and opportunities.
by politicsmatters on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 11:09:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Is The Obama Inevitability Campaign Backfiring (none / 0)

Bill Clinton GASP

...OK, probably not. I think I watched too much pro wrestling as a kid.


"Hey, check it out. You just had yourself a glue OD. So you're learning another lesson. Don't do too much glue, or your night sucks."
by vcalzone on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 11:37:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Is The Obama Inevitability Campaign Backfiring (none / 0)

Yeah, normally I like Todd's posts, but he didn't produce a single shred of evidence to back up his contention.

Have you guys turned on the news lately? It's quite brutal for Clinton, and I only see it continuing with the huge gap between now and the next vote. She is definitely NOT winning the media war on this.

But the real problem is that the argument against her is right. There is no way for her to win without a superdelegate coup overturning Obama's delegate lead. So, empty pleas for votes to be heard aside, it's pretty hard for the media to keep pretending she has a shot when she doesn't.


by animated on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 11:13:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Is The Obama Inevitability (none / 0)

It's not a bad card for her to play, but her hand is weak overall.  Then again, they've been trading bad weeks and maybe next week he'll have the rougher ride.


We care about politics because we know politics matters for people's lives and opportunities.
by politicsmatters on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 11:27:24 PM EST

Re: Is The Obama Inevitability (none / 0)

Hillary has four hearts and Obama has a straight. She went all in. The river is coming, and that heart is all that can save her.


"Hey, check it out. You just had yourself a glue OD. So you're learning another lesson. Don't do too much glue, or your night sucks."
by vcalzone on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 11:40:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

As a Clinton partisan (2.00 / 4)

I have been really torn by this argument.

On the one hand, it's an obvious strategic error by the Obama campaign, and I love that part.  What better way to convince those yet to go to the polls than to a condescending math lecture about how their vote doesn't count?

But despite that, I can't help but take it personally.  People, if it was REALLY over, it would be obvious and you wouldn't have to repeat it like a mantra for months on end.  This constant harping on it is insulting: it assumes that either we Clintonites are too stupid to understand reality as well as you do, or else we're just completely unconcerned with the consequences of our actions.  It's extremely alienating, perhaps the most alienating argument of the entire Obama campaign--although it sure has some doozies to go up against.


by Trickster on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 11:27:41 PM EST

Re: As a Clinton partisan (none / 0)

I would think a Clinton supporter, more than anyone else in politics, would understand the difference between knowing a thing is so, and getting the narrative to accept that thing. The media wants this to drag out--what else will David Gregory, Wolf Blitzer and Chris Matthews bloviate about if not a Democratic battle royale? It serves their purposes to play this as two titans at peak performance battling to the death where either could just as easily win, when, on the numbers, it's starting to look more like the end of a siege than the midst of a battle.
by Jay R on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 11:43:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: As a Clinton partisan (none / 0)

So you don't think covering the run off between the Democrat and the Republican to the GE would be newsworthy?
I should think that would be a "battle to the death", this is just a primary. The only reason it's newsworthy is because we have a woman and a black man running for the primary.
"Who are you for? That is the wrong question. It should be who is for you?" HRC
by skohayes on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 09:17:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: As a Clinton partisan (none / 0)

It'll be newsworthy, but it has a different kind of coverage.  The surrogates will be more tightly controlled, the pundits will have fewer topics of conversation, and the talking points won't be nearly as inflammatory.  The coverage will shift to the 501(c)3s and the 527s and off the direct campaign surrogates.  But between now and the Conventions, there really won't be all that much to talk about except the battle between Freedom's Watch and the DNC to see who can brand the other side better.

But even more than that from the news departments' perspective is the risk of losing the audience.  People are tuning in because they see this as an active campaign that could go either way but is heading into the home stretch.  The usual rule is that voters don't really start tuning in until around Labor Day, so the amount of 'coverage' (i.e. punditry) the channels can get away with as long as this primary continues is an important factor.  Think of the profit margins--they generate advertising revenue and have an army of willing pundits willing to come on and opine for hours on end for the cost of a gift basket in the green room.  And all the while their field staff is being generally looked after by the campaigns.  

From a business perspective, this beats the hell out of covering those expensive stories that nobody cares about like, say, those awfully obscure wars we're fighting.


by Jay R on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 03:44:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: As a Clinton partisan (none / 0)

it assumes that either we Clintonites are too stupid to understand reality as well as you do, or else we're just completely unconcerned with the consequences of our actions.

Well, to be honest, I feel that those things are true sometimes.  I mean, if you look objectively at some of the stuff that Jerome has posted, it's sort of mind-boggling.  It really is very, very simple from my point of view:  The only way Clinton can win is for the SDs to override the popular will, and while they CAN do that, for them to actually do it requires pretty overwhelming evidence that the leading candidate isn't viable.

I mean, look in this thread, you have a Clinton supporter claiming the state of the race is equivalent to a 23-21 football game with 12 minutes left.  That's just willful ignorance of the situation at hand.

Clinton hanging around in the race, contributing to the dropping of both their poll numbers, waiting for something catastrophic to happen to the frontrunner because that's her only chance?  While I agree that the current round of calls for her to drop out is a tactical error, the current situation is pretty understandably frustrating for Obama supporters.


by ChrisKaty on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 01:22:23 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: As a Clinton partisan (2.00 / 1)

I think what Obama supporters fail to understand is that popular will can mean either pledged delegate winner or popular vote winner. I understand that Hillary will not catch up in pledged delegates, but I am confident she can catch up in popular vote. If after all voting is done, Hillary is the popular vote winner, there is no doubt in my mind that the superdelegates will side with her. Poll after poll will come out in June asking voters who should the SDs support, the popular vote winner or the pledged delegate winner, and I'm confident that people will say popular vote winner. Intuitively, to the average voter, it makes more sense for the person who has the most votes to win the nomination.


by katrinareyes on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 02:04:03 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: As a Clinton partisan (none / 0)

I really don't see her making much headway in the popular vote.  I currently have her winning by 200,000 votes in Penn, about 100,000 in West Virginia, and about 150,000 in Kentucky.  Obama currently has a 700,000 vote lead.  Giving her these margins brings his popular vote lead down to 250,000.  Now I have him winning North Carolina by 200,000, Oregon by 40,000, Montana by 20,000 and South Dakota by about 10,000.  I will call Indiana an even split now.  All of this leaves Obama ahead by 520,000 votes.  


by Toddwell on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 02:14:06 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: As a Clinton partisan (none / 0)

If after all voting is done, Hillary is the popular vote winner, there is no doubt in my mind that the superdelegates will side with her.

The fact that there's not a doubt in your mind about that just demonstrates that you're not being reasonable.  The only way Clinton can win the popular vote is for either the FL/MI counted as-is (utterly bogus and not going to happen) or revotes (extremely unlikely at this point) coupled with outperforming expectations in the rest of the races.  It's a very, very slim chance, and even if that all DOES come together and she gets a popular vote lead, it will be exceptionally slim.

Given that the nomination race is about delegates, not the popular vote, for the SDs to swing the nomination to Clinton the popular vote margin would have to be significant -- multiple hundreds of thousands, IMO.  The chances of that happening is basically nonexistent.

Seriously, look at it objectively.  She's basically got no chance other than a complete and utter Obama implosion.  Is it worth hurting his chances in November just waiting around for that to happen?

It's this kind of thinking that drives Obama folks crazy, Trickster.  Katrina seems to be under the impression that Clinton winning the popular vote is at least reasonably likely.  My only response is that I DO "understand reality" better than her.  I'm sorry if that seems arrogant, but I really am trying to be as objective as possible about this, and that's the only conclusion I can come to.


by ChrisKaty on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 02:26:06 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: As a Clinton partisan (none / 0)

Yes, it's a delegate race; but if you were being truly objective, you would know that neither can reach the magic number without superdelegates. So the question becomes who has a better moral claim to the nomination. Now, SDs are free to decide for themselves what that means. They're not bound by any one criterion. They can vote for Obama because he has the lead in pledged delegates. Or they can vote for Clinton because she has the lead in popular vote. Heck, they can vote for Clinton because they like her hair.

My point is if Clinton wins the popular vote, that gives her a strong moral argument to claim the nomination. And I'm confident that if SDs are faced with deciding between the popular vote winner and the pledged delegate winner, they will side with the popular vote winner.

For argument's sake, let's say Clinton wins the popular vote and SDs put her over the top. At the end of the primary process she will have the requisite number of delegates (2025) and have the popular vote to back that up. That's a perfectly legitimate win, and I don't see how Obama supporters can argue that that's overturning the will of the people.

I like how you say that the ONLY way for HRC to catch up in popular vote is by counting FL and MI COUPLED with outperforming expectations in the rest of the races. And I'm the one being blind to reality?

Here's one option:

Hillary by 17 in PA (2.4 mill TO): net gain 400,000 votes
Hillary by 5 in IN (800,000 TO): net gain 40,000
Hillary by 1 in NC (1.2 mill TO): net gain 12,500
Hillary by 18 in WV (270,000 TO): net gain 48,000
Hillary by 17 in KY (450,000): net gain 76,000
Hillary loses by 6 in Oregon (600,000 TO): -32,000
Hillary loses by 20 in MT (140,000 TO): -28,000
Hillary loses by 20 in SD (94,000 TO): -18,000
Hillary by 17 in PR (2 mill TO), 340,000 net gain.

That gives Hillary a net gain of +30,000 votes excluding Florida and Michigan and including the Caucus estimates. If you include just FL and the caucus estimates that total balloons to a 300,000 vote lead.

I'm not saying that this scenario will happen, but it's a scenario that can happen...one of many. It's really impossible to predict anything right now because it's impossible to predict voter turnout when we haven't seen a race this close and closely followed in a long long time.


by katrinareyes on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 12:09:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: As a Clinton partisan (none / 0)

I'm not torn at all - I won't vote for Obama.    It's just slander and character assassination coming from him, from the highest levels of that campaign.

"They would do anything to win, and that means anything," David Axelrod, Obama's chief strategist, told me Monday. "There is a frenetic energy around them to commandeer this election in any way they can."

Axelrod went on: "She is the ultimate Washington inside player. She is always asking, `How do we wire the vote? How do we wire the system to get the results we want?'

Fuck Axelrod.  I won't vote for Obama.

There, I said it.


by daria g on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 03:17:11 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: As a Clinton partisan (none / 0)

i've really liked how Axelrod has played out this campaign. Not running one negative ad (according to the Wisc project), understanding the dynamics to this primary (putting great ground games in caucus states) and branding Obama in a way that targets the wishes of Americans while adhering to that brand.

and when the going gets tough, having Obama tackle the issues, not by denial but by confronting the problem head on.

Penn on the other hand, what outstanding quality does he have? Axelrod is my guy when it comes to getting Democrats elected from now on.


!
by alex100 on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 11:12:02 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Well.. (none / 0)

Again, while I understand that you guys love HRC, you need to understand that in this race, at this time, she really doesn't matter.

If it wasn't for the attacks she levels at him, he could just not refer to her by name for the rest of this race, and she wouldn't make a whit of difference in this campaign.

She cannot, and will not come back unless he implodes.


Hell yeah we did.
by Darknesse on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 11:28:00 PM EST

In the immortal words of Monty Python (none / 0)

and now for something completely different....

reality:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/ 2008/latestpolls/index.html

Also, don't forget to notice that North Carolina will all but cancel out PA.  I'm pretty sure that's undemocratic and proves a horrible moral failing on Obama's part though, right?  I mean clearly it's sexism and race bating all wrapped up in one!!!

Please keep going though.  It's all worthwhile now that Ralph Nader (who handed us president W) has now declared that it is justifiable for the McCain surrogate to stay in the race.


Government derives its power from those that it governs.
by lockewasright on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 11:36:03 PM EST

Obama should stop talking about inevitability (2.00 / 2)

if for no other reason than it makes him look like an arrogant a-hole. If he's inevitable he shouldn't have to even worry about it.
by Upstate Dem on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 12:07:33 AM EST

Re: Obama should stop talking about inevitability (2.00 / 1)

If this was the last race, then yes, that would be true.  Problem is, he has to run another race after this one that's very much not inevitable, and the longer this one goes the worse shape he's going to be in for the second, more important race.


by ChrisKaty on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 02:09:05 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama should stop talking about inevitability (none / 0)

Did it make her look like an arrogant A-Hole leading up to Super Tuesday?

Come on, you guys are getting offended by basic gamesmanship here. And she'd be doing the same thing.

Save your offense for something real. This is just basic Primary politics, and if you're shocked, you really haven't been paying attention the last few decades.


Fight the Smears!
by Lettuce on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 03:55:49 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Is The Obama Inevitability Campaign Backfiring (none / 0)


by Molee on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 12:27:14 AM EST

Indiana wants to vote (2.00 / 2)

Would the rest of you please STFU and let Indiana vote!!  Thank you.

We are an open primary state and the Repugs have stuck us with a voter ID law.  We have an unpopular GOP governor to oust.  Typically, Dems do NOT vote in the primary because important elections are NOT contested.  This year is different.  A LOT of new voters are registering for the primary.  Many will get their Voter ID issue out of the way in the primary.  Because of the high turnout, we will be able to ID many more strong Ds than ever before.  This is a HUGE boost to our GOTV in November and will help us down ballot.  

So what if there is an attempt by the GOP to dump on Obama and Clinton and make it look like they are dumping on each other.  This is GOP dirty tricks in action.  If it were just one candidate, they would be swift boating the one left like they did Kerry in summer of 04.  With 2 in the race, if the GOP manages to destroy one, they will have to deal with the survivor.  We are in a  far stronger position with both Obama and Clinton in the race.  Of course the GOP wants one or the other out of the way.  Ignore them.  


by bakho on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 12:28:34 AM EST

Re: Is The Obama Inevitability Campaign Backfiring (none / 0)

Wow.  Are you serious?  This is working . . . to what end?  Putting McInsane in the Whit House?  I mean there is no way she wins the nomination absent the aliens landing.  This is no reflection on her, good or bad, just a fact.  There is NO set of circumstances, absent Obama being a transexual, that the super delegates break for her.  So she and Obama just keep pounding on each other for months?  What genius came up with that plan?  How utterly ridiculous.  Yeah Hillary, just keep on fighting so that we can have another 4 Republican years and complete the decent into Hell's 9th level.  Thanks a ton.


Scy
by scytherius on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 12:30:50 AM EST

Is this a candidate diary or a press release? (1.00 / 1)

Whatever it is, it's stupid. Obama is opening up a lead. He has more money. Hillary's colleagues are telling her to drop out. He is ahead in every single metric, by an insurmountable margin in most.

Hillary can no longer win. What is the mental illness in her supporters (and I was one for quite a long time) that makes them insist that it's not over? The remaining portion of the race cannot put her over the top. It can cripple Obama and give McCain an unearned victory.

Hillary can now be gracious in defeat or she can scorch the earth. It's that goddamn simple.


by epenthesis on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 12:40:04 AM EST

Re: Is this a candidate diary or a press release? (2.00 / 1)

I wouldn't characterize her supporters the way you have, but there have been three example of denial here this week:

1. Clinton supporters kept claiming that Clinton's statements about her Bosnia trip (snipers, running, no ceremony) were accurate even after Clinton herself said they were not.

2. Clinton supporters claimed a poll showing 37% positives was wrong because the poll was done wrong even though people kept explaining to them what oversampling and reweighting meant.

3. Clinton supporters claiming that Obama's delegate lead is only 1% even though it is four to six TIMES that amount depending on whether you mean all delegates or just pledged delegates. And that diary is still up:
http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/3/28/2343 23/908#21


We care about politics because we know politics matters for people's lives and opportunities.
by politicsmatters on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 12:57:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Is this a candidate diary or a press release? (none / 0)

And 4% to 6% is an overwhelming lead?
That's delegates
Popular vote difference is in the noise.
by nellre on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 03:17:03 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Is this a candidate diary or a press release? (2.00 / 1)

Yes. It's overwhelming. A mere 4% is still an insurmountable lead, and is, as such, overwhelming.

Even if your short .5%, if you can't make up that .5% its overwhelming.

Since that's the reality in this case, now what?


Fight the Smears!
by Lettuce on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 03:57:46 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Is this a candidate diary or a press release? (none / 0)

With the number of pledged delegates left to allocate, it would be very, very hard to Clinton to get a lead - particularly because of the proportional allocation system.  

Let me suggest that you run some scenarios through a delegate calculator http://www.slate.com/id/2185278/


We care about politics because we know politics matters for people's lives and opportunities.
by politicsmatters on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 10:28:51 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Is this a candidate diary or a press release? (none / 0)

Why, it's the mental illness caused by people calling us mentally ill for not agreeing with them.  


by daria g on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 03:20:32 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Is The Obama Inevitability Campaign Backfiring (2.00 / 1)

The real number Hillary needs to be worried about is 1627.  That is the number needed to claim a majority of the pledged delegates (3253 total).  Obama already has 1414 and only needs 213 of the remaining 591 outstanding or 36%.  Once Obama has the pledged delegate majority it will take an act of God for the Supers to overturn this result.

In order for Clinton to claim a majority in pledged delegates she would need to capture 65% of the remaining pledged delegates or capture 70-75% percent popular vote of EVERY remaining primary.


Toot, thank you for raising such a terrific person...You done good and we will have you in our hearts.
by hootie4170 on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 12:54:47 AM EST

Re: Is The Obama Inevitability Campaign Backfiring (2.00 / 1)

You are ignoring FL and MI. Those states will be counted and when they are and when Hillary wins a bunch more, she may be ahead in the delegate count.

Hillary still has a good chance to win. I just contributed $100. Money well spent.


by Nobama on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 01:07:46 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Is The Obama Inevitability Campaign Backfiring (none / 0)

Those states will never be counted as is...if you have a link showing they will be please advise :)


Toot, thank you for raising such a terrific person...You done good and we will have you in our hearts.
by hootie4170 on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 01:11:42 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Is The Obama Inevitability Campaign Backfiring (none / 0)

First, I know what the rules are. Howard Dean is in violation of the DNConvention rules when he says those states lose their delegates. The rules clearly state the remedy for a timing infraction. To wit:

3. The DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee shall either certify compliance, certify  
  non-compliance or require corrective action after which compliance or non-  
  compliance shall be certified.

C. 1. a.  Violation of timing: In the event the Delegate Selection Plan of a state party  
   provides or permits a meeting, caucus, convention or primary which constitutes  
   the first determining stage in the presidential nominating process to be held prior  
   to or after the dates for the state as provided in Rule 11 of these rules, or in the  
   event a state holds such a meeting, caucus, convention or primary prior to or after
   such dates, the number of pledged delegates elected in each category allocated to  
   the state pursuant to the Call for the National Convention shall be reduced by  
fifty (50%) percent, and the number of alternates shall also be reduced by fifty
(50%) percent. In addition, none of the members of the Democratic National
Committee and no other unpledged delegate allocated pursuant to Rule 8.A. from
that state shall be permitted to vote as members of the state's delegation. In
determining the actual number of delegates or alternates by which the state's
delegation is to be reduced, any fraction below .5 shall be rounded down to the
nearest whole number, and any fraction of .5 or greater shall be rounded up to the
next nearest whole number.

So, according to the rule, the worst that can happen is for half of all the delegates awarded shall be seated as originally allocated. Further, this remedy can be appealed so that all are seated as allocated. Failure to do so would do irreparable harm to the nominee in the GE. This all gets handled at the convention and that's where Hillary is taking her fight.

This is the reality. Everything else is BS.


by Nobama on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 02:02:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Is The Obama Inevitability Campaign Backfiring (none / 0)

Maybe that's a version of reality in some quantum probability equation, but in the macro world of Newtonian physics... your "reality" requires a few too many leaps to actually mesh with reality.

All the campaigns agreed FL and MI won't count. The DNC agreed. If the DNC goes back on it, they'll never again have any ability to keep the states from just doing whatever the hell the please.

It's in the DNC's strategic interest to  NOT  let MI and FL get away with shirking the rules without punishment.

And as such, it won't happen. Won't. Nah-gonna-happen.


Fight the Smears!
by Lettuce on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 04:02:02 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Is The Obama Inevitability Campaign Backfiring (none / 0)

Reality is the fact that a federal judge declared the Michigan primary election unconstitutional, and the results invalid. This isn't Obama saying this, this isn't Howard Dean - this is a judge.

Let me repeat that to be very clear - there are no 'legal' results from Michigan. The election didn't happen from a legal standpoint.


by tysonpublic on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 10:43:53 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Is The Obama Inevitability Campaign Backfiring (2.00 / 2)

Every time I hear a new Democratic leader call for Hillary to drop out, I send her money.


On to the Convention Floor!
by oh puhleeze on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 02:18:52 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Is The Obama Inevitability Campaign Backfiring (none / 0)

That's probably going to start to get pretty expensive.


by Shaun Appleby on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 03:19:17 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Is The Obama Inevitability Campaign Backfiring (none / 0)

I certainly hope so.


On to the Convention Floor!
by oh puhleeze on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 03:49:16 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Is The Obama Inevitability Campaign Backfiring (none / 0)

You mean you hope more Democratic leaders call for her to drop out?


by Weirdsmobile on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 07:41:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Is The Obama Inevitability (2.00 / 2)

"She's doing exactly what she needs to do right now: Making the party elites and their new golden child look like the disenfranchisers they have been and seek to continue to be."

So when Hillary Clinton says that the superdelegates should ignore the results of the pledged delegates contests, which are clearly going to favor Obama, and when she argues (correctly) that superdelegates and even "pledged" delegates are free to vote for whomever they choose without regard to the results of their state contests, she's NOT a disinfranchiser, but when Obama surrogates suggest that it might be time, in light of the insurmountable lead Obama has ammassed, for Clinton to consider striking her tent and getting behind the party's nominee, he is disinfranchising the people whose vote Clinton says should be ignored.  

Oh, and it turns out that the results of the rest of the contests will not determine a winner -- the superdelegates will.  And with Casey, Obama further narrows Clinton's shaky lead in the only category she's ahead in -- superdelegates, now down to 35.  And now, with at least 6 superdelegates joining in the "Pelosi Club" of those who are pledged to support the winner of the pledged delegate race (which is beyond Clinton's grasp to overcome), the real superdelegate lead is down below 30.  

It's pretty clear what's happening here.  Obama is announcing a couple high profile superdelegates each week, with Richardson and Casey now both on board, and it appears as if the party leaders are getting tired of waiting for Clinton to quit on her own.  What's disinfranchising voters in the late states and territories isn't Obama -- it's that the race is over.  


by Headlight on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 01:01:36 AM EST

What I'm worried about (none / 0)

I'm worried about two things...

First and most important is the amount of money and energy being tied to this race.  It's going to, if it hasn't already, severely impact the down ticket races which the Dems desperately need to win if whomever the nominee is wants to advance any of the liberal agenda.

Second, is I just don't see how Hillary can win.  I posted this elsewhere in the thread, but if she won Ohio by 10 points and only got like 9 delegates out of it, how is even a 20 point win in PA going to put a dent in the 155+ delegate lead Obama has?

I really am looking for a way for her to win, but with the system being the way it is, I just don't see it.

I suspect the Leahy's et al are speaking out because of my first concern.  They are, afterall, politicians and see the need to increase the Dem majority better than anyone.

Help me out here?


by G Davis on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 01:09:33 AM EST

Re: Is The Obama Inevitability Campaign Backfiring (1.00 / 1)

Well are we sure Clinton really wants everyone else to vote??

I mean the majority of the states that remain are Red States or small states or not even states at all.  Aren't those the places that "don't matter because we won't win them in November."

I'm confused...  Do red states and small states matter or not?!  All these mixed messages are making my head spin... spin... spin...


John McCain believes "Women shouldn't have a choice."
by jturn17 on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 01:11:51 AM EST

Re: Is The Obama Inevitability Campaign Backfiring (none / 0)

"we did it again this month in Texas and Ohio."
Texas?
I believe irony is the fulcrum of our lives.
Obama is now considered inevitable and Clinton is hoping.
"If you want to end war and stuff, you gotta sing loud"...Arlo Guthrie
by nogo war on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 01:13:19 AM EST

Re: Is The Obama Inevitability Campaign Backfiring (2.00 / 1)

The race is a statistical tie.
Obama is not inevitable.
This kind of talk is driving the weak Obama supporters away from him and the HRC supports closer to her.
I've got a brother and a daughter that are Obama supporters currently, I predict that in a few weeks they'll be HRC supporters. Why? Because the Obama supporters are Obama representatives, and we aren't very impressed.

by nellre on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 01:30:03 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Is The Obama Inevitability Campaign Backfiring (2.00 / 1)

Now I'm not trying to drive Clinton supporters closer to her, but it's not a statistical tie.  That's a myth.

He's winning the pledged delegates around 1416-1248.  That's 53%-47%.  While it's relatively close, that's not a statistical tie.  There are around 3253 pledged delegates, and 566 pledged delegates remaining to be allocated.  That means around 83% of the votes are already in.  How many elections wouldn't be called with a candidate up by 6% with only 17% remaining??

I'm not saying Clinton should drop out.  She's free to continue, but I mean I think we can all agree that her only chance of winning to do go so negative that nobody will vote for Obama.  And vice versa he'll continue to go negative on her to counter the reaction.  We have to think to ourselves, "At the end of the day, is it really worth having President McCain just so that Clinton can win the nomination??"  Because that's probably what's going to happen if the two candidates continue to tear each other apart.


John McCain believes "Women shouldn't have a choice."
by jturn17 on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 02:21:50 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Closer than you think (none / 0)

According to the AP, including projections and SDs, Obama's lead is only 119 without FL and MI. Those states will be counted. For FL, Hillary would get around 104 and Obama 69, giving her a gain of 35. Looking at MI, Hill would get about 86. If uncommitted goes to Obama, that'd be 62, a gain for Hill of 24. That's a total gain of 59. That leaves Obama with a lead of 60 but there are 10 states ahead.

Hillary has a good chance to win PA, WV, KY, and IN. NC could be a draw. I'm not sure about the rest.

Hillary could come very close to tying or beating Obama and she may well surpass him in the popular vote. The two candidates will be close enough for the SDs to make the final decision and that should be Hillary because she's the stronger candidate against McCain.


by Nobama on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 03:24:06 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Closer than you think (none / 0)

Wishes. Horses. Beggers. Riding.


Fight the Smears!
by Lettuce on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 04:03:40 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Closer than you think (none / 0)

Your situation is the best case scenario for Clinton and all you have is her getting close and not actually passing him up.  Why are we including superdelegates?  Are you advocating that superdelegates should overturn what the people say??  That's silly.  Say what you want about superdelegates they aren't stupid.  They aren't going to give the nomination to Hillary and risk hurting the Dem party in the future.

But anyway, the reality of the situation is that they're likely to split the pledged delegates throughout the rest of the season, which means he'll end up with around 140-150 lead.  If MI and FL get seated it won't be as is.  FL will be worth 50% of their current count, which means +19 to Hillary.  Even if you seat MI as is, which you can't because it's completely unfair, He still has around a 100 delegate lead after all the delegates have been selected.  Do we really think superdelegates are going to overturn that?  Besides there are a lot of superdelegates who are going to vote with the pledged delegates [+ for Obama]  there are some superdelegates who are leaning Obama and are waiting for all the delegates to be distributed so that they have a reason to vote for him and not Clinton.  And I'm sure Clinton has some superdelegates leaning towards her also waiting to see if she can take a delegate lead.

The issue is can she get enough superdelegates to overturn the will of the people, she'd have to win like 70% of the remaining superdelegates to win the nomination... I'm just not sure it's possible, but hey... we'll see...


John McCain believes "Women shouldn't have a choice."
by jturn17 on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 12:32:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Is The Obama Inevitability Campaign Backfiring (none / 0)

"Statistical tie" is a concept that has nothing to do with election results.

A statistical tie exists when you compare two samples drawn from a population and, when you look at their margin of error at the 95% likelihood level, the results overlap.  

We don't have samples here, we have actual result, and there is no margin of error, thus no extension from the results and no statistical tie.


We care about politics because we know politics matters for people's lives and opportunities.
by politicsmatters on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 10:17:17 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Wow, the bullies are out in force tonight! (2.00 / 2)

Hang in there, Hillary supporters.  The tide is turning, whether the freepers bullies like it or not.


Never let the bullies win.
by SluggoJD on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 01:25:16 AM EST

We can always reverse the rotation of the Earth. (none / 0)

That is what SuperDelegates are for.


by LibDem on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 01:42:29 AM EST

Re: Is The Obama Inevitability Campaign Backfiring (2.00 / 2)

Like I continue to say; if it was truly "over" then the concern trolls wouldn't be out there begging for Hillary to drop out. No one was begging for Huckabee to drop out of the GOP primary after McCain got a lead--because he didn't have a chance of winning. The fact that Bambi continues to attack Hillary on a daily basis is because he knows that Hillary will still win--and every day she's still in the race, the Bambibots and their messiah get more and more nervous.


Hillary supporter for Barack Obama in 2008
by zcflint05 on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 02:05:49 AM EST

Re: Is The Obama Inevitability Campaign Backfiring (2.00 / 1)

Of course Huckabee didn't go negative on McCain everyday either.  He stood up and made the case why people should elect him over McCain and dropped out when they didn't...

If the two democrats weren't tearing each other apart no one would care if the other dropped out.  That isn't reality, however.


John McCain believes "Women shouldn't have a choice."
by jturn17 on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 02:31:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Is The Obama Inevitability Campaign Backfiring (none / 0)

No one was begging for Huckabee to drop out of the GOP primary after McCain got a lead

1) because he wasn't desperately trying to destroy McCain

2) because no one really wanted McCain anyway - he was just the last man standing after the others made such jokes of themselves.


McCain housing policy shaped by lobbyist.
by obsessed on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 03:30:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama Inevitability (2.00 / 1)

I can remember a time when it was Clinton who was supposed to be inevitable.

THAT is what backfired.

I dont' know if Obama is inevtiable, but if he's not we're in for a long, heated, knock-down drag-out fight and that is not something anyone should be eager to have.

Obama is ahead.  Plain and simple.  This needs to end.  Soon.


by DawnG on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 02:11:53 AM EST

Re: (none / 0)

So by her own logic, if she had taken a huge early lead in this race, she would want the race to continue for the sake of the voters in states like NC just so they could be heard?

Don't get me wrong. I realize this race is close and that makes her staying in a little more legit but for different reasons that her moral fairness argument. Don't patronize the voters of the later states by making them think it's about them and democracy. It's about getting more votes than Obama any way she can and they are the last chance she has. If she has been more ahead, she wouldn't have given them a second thought if it meant she could wrap up the nomination.


by neverfox on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 02:44:27 AM EST

You should see the video (2.00 / 1)

of when he talked to Maria Bartiromo. He said

"...When I'm sworn in in January."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zz5SglJPq ms

He also said McCain is trying to paint him as a "liberal" and when Maria asked "you're not a liberal" he didn't answer.


by LatinoVoter on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 03:19:41 AM EST

Seriously - How did it come to this? (2.00 / 2)

Think about it. Hillary was way ahead by a prohibitive margin. She had no scandals, problems, or major attacks from her competitors prior to Super Tuesday. She was the inevitable nominee and we all knew it.

How did Obama wind up leading? It wasn't by negative campaigning. Whatever you guys are claiming as examples of Obama attacking Hillary came way after February.

Obama's votes were votes for Obama, not against Hillary. The guy has run an astoundingly great campaign by any measure. He's winning fair and square. Isn't that what we want?


McCain housing policy shaped by lobbyist.
by obsessed on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 03:26:11 AM EST

Re: Is The Obama Inevitability Campaign Backfiring (none / 0)

No.


by Shaun Appleby on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 03:59:55 AM EST

Obama Campaign = inevitable. Sorry. (2.00 / 1)

While audience-clapping does save Tinkerbell, blog-clapping cannot save Hillary from insurmountable math. And momentum really seems to be in Obama's favor at the moment, for whatever that's worth.

I see no evidence that there's any real non-Hillary-supporting outrage over the FL and MI delegate situtation, certainly no national outrage, and I find it hard to believe that FL or MI voters will feel "disenfranchised" because, by the end, it won't make a difference. He's too far ahead. It may seem tantalizingly close, but the phrase "so near, yet so far away" exists for a reason.

I don't care if she keeps running. I do look forward to blogs once this is over and we can concentrate on the real bad guys, not this bizarre civil war.


Fight the Smears!
by Lettuce on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 04:08:17 AM EST

Re: Is The Obama Inevitability Campaign Backfiring (2.00 / 1)

Brilliant!

Obama's inevitability strategy backfires and his supporters...yet again...fall back on THE MATH.

You like math? I like math too. Check this out.

Florida and Michigan will be counted one way or another. They are extremely important states. Its just gonna happen.

Hillary will clobber Obama in PA by 15% (her polling average right now).

With these 3 states counted, she's now ahead in the popular vote, and much closer in delegates. She wins in IN and keeps it close in NC, then wins big in KY, WV and PR (who will vote in very large numbers).

The contests are over, and Hillary has won more votes. Even if she's a bit behind in pledged delegates, the superdelegates will be hard pressed to vote against the winner of the most votes and the large bedrock states that we need to win in the general.

Hillary wins nomination. If Obama is not ruined by scandal by that point, he should happily accept as running mate if offered.

How do you like THAT math?

See Jerome's post last night for more information.


by Scan on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 04:27:09 AM EST

Re: Is The Obama Inevitability Campaign Backfiring (2.00 / 1)

How do you like THAT math?
It's pretty fuzzy.  

At best, MI and FL will get 50% of their delegation seated, with no supers.

A couple of weeks ago, IIRC, Hillary was up by about 20% in PA--if she's at 15% now, that's not good for her.

Most pundits see IN as close and NC as likely a big win for Obama.

I dunno about KY, WV, and PR.


by David in AK on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 05:05:21 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Is The Obama Inevitability Campaign Backfiring (none / 0)

1.  Florida and Michigan will have delegates seated at the national convention.  But the superdelgates are going to follow Howard Dean's advice and seal the nomination for one of the candidates before the end of June.  

2.  Actually, recent polling has given her a lead of  about 12-13%, excluding one outlier poll that had her up 26% with 14% undecided.  Those results are far outside the range of polls before or after.

Generally polls tighten in the days before any election.  The undecideds can be expected to break for Obama as they generally have throughout the campaign.  Clinton is a well-known factor -- vetted, as she likes to say.  In many ways she's analogous to an incumbent, and undecideds usually break in favor of the challenger.  

In any case, a win of 20% or more would really be needed to significantly close the delegate gap with proportionate representation.  

3.  "with these 3 states counted."  The timeline here is all wrong.  It's assuming that there will be a decision on how to count MI and FL before the superdelegates have delivered the race to one of the two candidates.  If the superdelegates act first, it's a whole lot easier to accommodate FL and MI -- because their votes, the taint on the elections, etc. will be irrelevant to the outcome.  

4.  Some superdelegates have already stated that they will support the leader in pledged delegates including the speaker of the house.  Considering that there are a lot of unpledged superdelegates in the house, many of them in their first term, Pelosi's lead on this will be pretty influential.  

5.  So in short -- your math doesn't make any sense.  We have to accept a whole series of extremely speculative assumptions before we get to your conclusion: that somehow a decision will be made to count Florida and Michigan in the next few weeks; that Clinton will convincingly win Pennsylvania; that Clinton will pull ahead in the popular vote; and that if she does that, superdelegates will decide to go with the winner of the national popular vote rather than the overall delegate leader.  


by Headlight on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 02:18:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: (none / 0)

http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/3/27/1949 47/250


by Scan on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 02:47:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: (none / 0)

Yes.  The "lifeline strategy."  It really doesn't matter what Clinton can argue or whether she's willing to take this to the floor of the convention if superdelegates put Obama over the top first, does it?  The only people who are saying that the delegates selected in these two states should be counted like any other delegates are those whose candidate can't win without that happening, right?  I don't know of any of the uncommitted superdelegates saying that they should wait until the credentials committee acts for the nominee of the party to be named, and plenty are saying that that would be a disaster for Democrats.  


by Headlight on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 03:37:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Is The Obama Inevitability Campaign Backfiring (none / 0)

This story is hilarious considering the kind of campaign Hillary was running up until the February contests ended her inevitability.

As for the "backfiring" part, talk about grasping at straws.  Hillary's using it in a fundraising letter?  Wow!

Bottom line, Hillary being seen as the underdog helps Obama a heck of a lot more than people thinking the campaigns are neck and neck.


by Skaje on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 05:57:02 AM EST

Re: Is The Obama Inevitability Campaign Backfiring (none / 0)

"As for the "backfiring" part, talk about grasping at straws.  Hillary's using it in a fundraising letter?  Wow!"

Which means Todd Beaton has posted a Hillary fundraising letter on the front of MyDD.


The choice is simple: A President who voted for the worst of Bush's odius agenda, or one who didn't.
by Liberal Avenger on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 11:46:16 AM EST
[ Parent ]

It might backfire for a short while (none / 0)

But the reality is that Obama has been ahead through practically the entire campaign. He's had setbacks, and well, he's not only still in the race, but still ahead.

Its difficult for a candidates supporters to admit its 'over'. And fine, there are still 10 states left to vote.

But one has to ask, which is more important? Hillary (or Barack) winning the nomination, or the Democrats winning in November?

I suspect for too many people, its the first. Hopefully they'll come to their senses soon, since its absurd for ANY Democrat to vote to continue 8 years of Bush.

What Obama has in his favor is he is ahead by almost every scenario. The only way..people can try to put him behind, is by giving Hillary everything from Michigan..and nothing to Obama. Thats undemocratic.


AnnMarie
by wiscogirl101 on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 06:52:17 AM EST

Re: Is The Obama Inevitability Campaign Backfiring (2.00 / 1)

This talk of "inevitability" is pretty extraordinary when you consider that the pledged delegate lead is less than 5%, and is probably going to go down when the remaining contests are played out.  It is extraordinary because it is predicated on the assumption that the pledged delegate winner, but however small a margin, must be awarded the nomination, when the rules nowhere say that.

Most superdelegates know that Obama has hung a big millstone around Democratic necks with his association with Black Liberation Theology.  They know the shit may stick to them, as well, when the Republicans exploit it for all it is worth.


by Bob H on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 07:51:45 AM EST

Re: Is The Obama Inevitability Campaign Backfiring (none / 0)

The pledged delegate lead is 6%.


We care about politics because we know politics matters for people's lives and opportunities.
by politicsmatters on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 10:18:50 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Is The Obama Inevitability Campaign Backfiring (none / 0)

"Most superdelegates know that Obama has hung a big millstone around Democratic necks with his association with Black Liberation Theology."

Actually, they know Hillary has hung a huge millstone around the party's neck with her association with the worst of Bush's NeoCon agenda.


The choice is simple: A President who voted for the worst of Bush's odius agenda, or one who didn't.
by Liberal Avenger on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 11:43:50 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Is The Obama Inevitability Campaign Backfiring (none / 0)

What is your basis for saying what most superdelegates know?  Was there a survey or something?  Have you talked to any uncommitted superdelegates who have expressed this concern?  


by Headlight on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 01:37:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Obama Inevitability Campaign Backfiring? (none / 0)

It's a little premature to say anything is backfiring when Obama is up 8% in the national polls. Still, of course Senator Clinton has every right to stay in the race if she follows the example of Governor Hucklebee and campaigns in a respectful and productive manner, and concentrates on attacking Mccain rather than Obama. It's her supporters' money -- if they want to keep funding her great. What sometimes turns me off (and makes me question her judgement) is when she goes extremely negative.
 1. That  thuggist letter to Speaker Pelosi.
 2. The "race stuff"
I also find the Bosnia fabrication now an insurmountable obstacle to her in the GE. This is what I don't get. Her advisors are realists -- they must realize that we could not survive the ads that will be made about this. I think Senator Clinton herself has made herself unelectable.
by NYWoman on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 08:16:52 AM EST

Re: Is The Obama Inevitability (2.00 / 1)

Can I bring up something here that looks really... I guess "strange" is the word, though some may choose something harsher.

The Clinton campaign's running a pretty strong theme that Obama's trying to "disenfranchise" ... some primary voters, or Florida and Michigan, or whatever, while acknowledging with the other hand that their only chance of winning is to get the superdelegates, and even convince pledged delegates elected by the voters to ignore their constituencies' votes and select her instead.

That's a very hard dichotomy to maintain without looking disingenuous, and I don't think they're pulling it off.


by Rorgg on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 08:43:53 AM EST

Re: Is The Obama Inevitability Campaign Backfiring (2.00 / 1)

Why is it when someone merely points out the facts that it becomes a "campaign"?  There is no "Obama inevitability campaign".  There are just the hard cold facts for Hillary. She can't win unless she pulls off an inside deal.  Due to the fact that her husband used to be President, doing that will taint the process as people will feel she had undue influence and many newly energized voters will turn off on the party and sit out the GE.

That's the problem and that's why she needs to end this.  Having her talk about "campaigning over the next several MONTHS", tells us what her "campaign" is, and that is to try and do an end run around the electoral process.  We may have decided Presidential nominations that way in decades past, but it is not acceptable to do that any more.  


by MikeWalk on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 08:54:43 AM EST

Re: The Obama inevitability in November.... (2.00 / 1)

One of the many diners lingering about after the question-and-answer session, former Republican Massachusetts Governor Jane M. Swift, said she agreed with Fournier that Hillary Clinton would keep the general election close, while McCain would have a better chance against Obama.

http://firedoglake.com/2008/03/28/late-n ight-fdl-the-enemy-of-your-enemy-might-n ot-be-your-friend/


"I never give them hell. I just tell the truth and they think it's hell." Harry S Truman
by Tennessean on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 09:10:22 AM EST

Re: The Obama inevitability in November.... (none / 0)

Well, I guess Jane Swift has the magic crystal ball...is that why we should listen to her?


We care about politics because we know politics matters for people's lives and opportunities.
by politicsmatters on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 10:19:43 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Obama inevitability in November.... (none / 0)

Jane Swift has been a notoriously poor prognosticator even of her own political career.  Not sure why her word means anything.


by mady on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 10:59:46 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Obama inevitability in November.... (none / 0)

So you'll let a Republican to tell you who to choose? That's the sure fire way to lose.


The choice is simple: A President who voted for the worst of Bush's odius agenda, or one who didn't.
by Liberal Avenger on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 11:40:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Obama inevitability in November.... (none / 0)

I'm sorry.  When Hillary Clinton's supporters are grasping as the straw of Jane Swift's political prognostications, it's clearly time to look for the exits.  I suspect the reason she's lingering about after the question and answer session is that she didn't have any other pressing business.  If you don't know who Jane Swift is, here's a little background:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jane_Swift

Yep -- she's plumbed depths even George W. Bush has never sunk to -- single digit approval ratings as the acting governor, having risen from Lt. Governor when Celluci was appointed ambassador.  Not a person whose views on national politics deserve a whole lot of respect, but if that's the best that Clintonistas can scrape up I guess it's better than nothing.  


by Headlight on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 01:34:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Is The Obama Inevitability Campaign Backfiring (none / 0)

the inevitability message worked to well for Clinton 6 months ago, no reason for it not to work just as well for Obama now.


by gak on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 10:12:31 AM EST

Re: Is The Obama Inevitability Campaign Backfiring (none / 0)

Big difference......Hillary wasn't uncatchably ahead in delegates.


The choice is simple: A President who voted for the worst of Bush's odius agenda, or one who didn't.
by Liberal Avenger on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 11:39:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Is The Obama Inevitability Campaign Backfiring (1.00 / 1)

The "Hillary still has a chance" campaign is certainly backfiring.


The choice is simple: A President who voted for the worst of Bush's odius agenda, or one who didn't.
by Liberal Avenger on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 11:38:04 AM EST

Cuomo arguing for a unity ticket, I think (none / 0)

http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editor ial_opinion/oped/articles/2008/03/29/how _to_avoid_a_democratic_disaster/

HRC has already come out in favor of this with BO in VP slot.  Makes a lot of sense to me, even if the Wright baggage will hurt her candidacy at the top of the ticket at bit.


by Molee on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 11:58:04 AM EST

Re: Cuomo arguing for a unity ticket, I think (2.00 / 1)

so obama who has a lead in pledge delegates hillary can't surpass should just be her vp?

no sir. he is the leader and would have to be the top of any ticket. same for if hillary was leading.

how would women feel if hillary had this lead on obama and people told her to be his vp for the good of the party? even as a mna i would be blown away cause it would seem like it was stolen from hillary.and like the men in  the party was telling her to get back in the kitchen. women would riot. after all they fought for the be on the doorstep on that next level and be told to get to the back?

and as a black man you want obama to get to the "back of the ticket" even though he is winning? that would not sit well with black democrats anywhere.

right now the only way to stop the damage to the party is for hillary AND obama to tone down the negative attacks and focus on mccain. even give hillarya  chance to audition for the vp slot by showing she is a party player. and if something comes up and kills obama as a viable she would be the savior of our party.


by Leftyy2k4 on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 01:54:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Cuomo arguing for a unity ticket, I think (none / 0)

For those still advocating the so-called dream ticket with Hillary on top, dreams are all they have. Be not so cruel as to dash their hopes.


Avoid the word "socialism" when conversing with me, and I'll avoid the term "ignoramus" when responding to you.
by Sumo Vita on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 02:28:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Is The Obama Inevitability Campaign Backfiring (none / 0)

Today Rasmussen has Obama at +6. He was ahead in the most recent Gallup tracking poll at +8.

I guess that meme is really backfiring.


We care about politics because we know politics matters for people's lives and opportunities.
by politicsmatters on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 12:05:35 PM EST

Re: Is The Obama Inevitability Campaign Backfiring (none / 0)

This all just goes to show that Republicans do not have an exclusive title to faith-based logic.  


by Chango on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 12:06:12 PM EST

HRC winning the message war? (none / 0)

How do you know when a candidate is winning the message war?

If HRC wants to keep campaigning, why not? I expect Pat Buchanan's analysis is correct. Candidates don't quit running for POTUS when it becomes clear they'll lose, they quit when their donors stop contributing.

HRC should campaign against the GOP and Bush policies. But it seems like she spends a bunch of time tearing down Obama and speaking in code that her supporters should at least consider voting for McCain instead of Obama.


Rrrinnggg... Time to change the government.
by Carl Nyberg on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 12:56:07 PM EST

Is The Obama Inevitability Campaign Backfiring? (2.00 / 1)

I agree that the high-profile supporters of Obama that are calling for Clinton to step down are overzealous and should hush.  However, I don't think it's gotten to the point of "backfiring."  If these calls continued through the next few days, then I would say it would have a certain backlash, but up to now I don't see it.  I don't think she'll leave until her supporters start making suggestions.


This administration is not sinking. This administration is soaring! If anything, they are rearranging the deck chairs on the Hindenburg!
by venavena on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 01:36:04 PM EST

Fighting Fine, But Fight Right (none / 0)

I am not against fighting the good fight until the last day of the campaign.  It is healthy for our party.  It sharpens our message, BUT, and this is critical, I do not want the fight to lead in the direction Hillary had been taking it for the last month and a half.

To use the sports analogy, it is like we're in a playoff game prior to the Super Bowl and the other team is trying to take out our star quarterback.  When Hillary starts accusing Barrack of using Rovian tactics and starts implying that only she or McCain are fit for President of the United States, I want her out of the race, for the greater good.

If she can avoid that kind of divisiveness, talk about comparative policies and the superiority of her positions, experience or influence, great.  If she's going to spend the next 5 months kneecapping, she will be dealt with very harshly by the press, her critics and Obama supporters.


by zadura on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 02:33:01 PM EST

Re: Kneecapping (none / 0)

The News & Observer (Raleigh, NC) ran an article Thursday comparing Hillary to Tonya Harding, and echoing the possibility that she wants to see Obama lose so that she can run in 2012 on "I told you so".


Avoid the word "socialism" when conversing with me, and I'll avoid the term "ignoramus" when responding to you.
by Sumo Vita on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 02:18:43 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Kneecapping (none / 0)

I have heard this before and I personally doubt it.  What I don't doubt is that she is extremely ambitious and wants to win this year.  Reality will intrude in about 3 weeks.  If she fights into May, then I think we'll have a real problem.


by zadura on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 04:38:29 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Is The Obama Inevitability Campaign Backfiring (2.00 / 1)

Took the time to read all this crap, didn't change my mind at all.  O supporters think he's winning but even if he wins, he loses.  The reason?  His foreign policy statements will not win this fall.  No man who continually says that America is wrong will ever win the WH.  So even if O gets the nomination, he will never win the WH, especially running against McCain.  O cannot win the WH.  I know the die hard O fans will scream and scream, but it is already in the numbers, the real votes cast by real people in states where O has failed to get the base of the party to vote for him.  These voters will swing, it is inevitable.

I had a talk with some friends of mine, who don't usually talk about politics, these guys opened my eyes to the realities in this election.  The truth is that democrats must have their base and then some thing that gets a few other voters to come their way to ever win the WH.  Now I know that you O supporters think O is all that, but these guys opened my eyes.  Although they were just regular guys I was surprised by the dislike they had for O.  They said emphatically that they would never vote for him, no time, no way, and their emotion was striking as well as eye opening.  And the reason?  They don't like it at all when a man says that America has committed the biggest foreign policy blunder ever, even though they wanted us to get out of Iraq.  I guess that will be the bottom line for many voters.  O blames America.  This is a narrative that McCain will exploit.  If O cannot get the base to support him, he will never win the WH no matter how much his supporters think he is entitled to it.  O does not give me much confidence that he will ever get the down scale voters to vote for him.  It is the older voter who actually selects the president.  O supporters are young energetic and committed, but the older voter is not so sold on him.  These are the same voters who voted for Reagan, even though they were democrats.  These are the same voters who voted for Bill Clinton, the same voters who are currently voting for Clinton.  If she is not in  the race, there is not much chance they will in fact vote for O.  

I am sorry but the numbers in Ohio are plain for all to see.  The same thing will prove out in Penn.  Without these voters O has not a prayer to ever win the WH, which should be your concern, and not all this back and forth over Clinton vs. Obama.  If O does not show strength where it counts, with these voters, he will not win.  That should be your focus, instead of all this Clinton hating that goes on.  This is the reason that many are supporting Clinton.  In fact, half of the party supports Clinton, and that is a fact, steady split in the party 46% to 46% basically it is split, no matter what the delegate count is, the truth is that O is a weak candidate where it really counts and that is with those very voters who are NOT voting for him, people like the guys I spoke about above.  There seems no way to ever "win" these guys, nothing O say will do it.  If they are not voting for Clinton I bet they will be voting for McCain.  That is the big concern and it has little to do with anything Clinton says and a lot to do with what Obama has already said.


democrat voter
by democrat voter on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 02:42:54 PM EST

Re: Is The Obama Inevitability Campaign Backfiring (none / 0)

Holy Shit.  Well if your friends said that O will not win, I give up.  There is clearly a higher force at work in this election than the comparatively larger number of Democrats who have voted for Barack than have voted for Hillary.


by zadura on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 02:51:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Is The Obama Inevitability Campaign Backfiring (none / 0)

Sorry Democrat Voter, but the numbers do not back-up your claim at all.

I too have done similar polling to yours. Last night I was talking with some of my friends and they all support Obama. Therefore, the only logical conclusion is that everyone in America will vote for Obama and therefore he will win.

The number just don't lie. Ten guys drinking Guinness on a rainy SF night can't be wrong.


Voting for John McCain is not God bless America.
by SFValues on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 04:07:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Campaign Backfiring? (none / 0)

This charade is destroying the party.  vote Obama!


by juang on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 08:08:25 PM EST

Re: Is The Obama Inevitability Campaign Backfiring (2.00 / 1)

"I guess that will be the bottom line for many voters.  O blames America."

Yes, for many voters.. of the dittohead persuasion. I'd like to think that most democrats and quite a few republicans do understand the difference between "America" and "Bush administration policies".


Avoid the word "socialism" when conversing with me, and I'll avoid the term "ignoramus" when responding to you.
by Sumo Vita on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 02:13:13 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.

Login
Username:

Password: