The New Clinton Math Raises Eyebrows

Clinton's stunning victory celebration in Pa in which she carried almost every region and demographic, is now developing into a fund raising event that is amassing millions overnight. The New Clinton Math equates into some real trouble for Obama, the frontrunner who can't close the deal on the nomination. The equation that will flash in the minds of many voters is very simple and adds up to a convincing argument in the minds of superdelegates who will ultimately decide this nomination.

The new math is 4-1=10+3. You may be asking, what kind of math is this? Let me now explain. Barack Obama has been crusading throughout this campaign boasting about the huge money advantage he had in this race, but money does not equate into a win, as he found out in a big way last night in Pa. Having been outspent by almost 4 to 1 by a bombardment of Obama ads across the state, he failed miserably to convince superdelegates that he can win important battleground states.
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/politics/bu lletin/bulletin_080423.htm

How can you outspend your opponent by large amounts and lose by convincing numbers in a crucial swing state like Pa. Immediately following her impressive double digit-10 point victory the money started pouring into her campaign, raising more than 3 million in just a few hours. The argument that will be raised now going into Indiana in two weeks is a very important and legitimate one at this point in this race.
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,235 89226-1702,00.html

What about those media pundits and pollsters who are now wiping the mud off of their faces this morning? These so-called political experts have relentlessly beat up on Hillary, proclaiming that she was finished and should get out of the race. The lesson they are learning is one that has resonated in recent contests, the more you beat up on a candidate, the more you will find yourself on the wrong side of the equation. Do I see some glum faces in the media circuits this morning?

Obama's big problem is that he has failed to close the deal with Democrats and must continue to spend his millions trying to convince voters and superdelegates that he is the candidate that can win in November. But he has a dilemma on his hands with White Blue-Collar, Catholic and Women Voters, as has been evident throughout this campaign. The bottom line is that they don't trust him and for good reasons. The Gun-Clinging comments hurt him with gun owners in Pa. The "God Damn America" remarks of Rev. Wright hurt him with regular church goers in Pa. His ties with radical fundamentalists such as "weather underground" disturb rural democratic voters. His connections with Rezko, a Chicago thug now on trial for fraud, raises question marks for many voters.

These are real questions that have and will continue to be raised about Obama, a virtual unknown that campaigns on "empty rhetoric" and acts as if the nations owes him the nomination. In this country you must earn your way and fight for what you believe in, as Hillary has demonstrated throughout this campaign. Yet Obama sits on his lead and acts as if this nomination is his to lose.  

As the nomination process winds down, there are several things that will play out leading up to the Denver Convention. Obama's lead in delegates and popular vote will continue to erode, especially in states such as Kentucky,West Virginia and Puerto Rico where Clinton will win by large margins. Hillary will argue that she has won all but one of the largest states that are essential to victory in November. She will argue that if the Florida and Michigan votes are counted she has the lead in popular vote. She will argue that she is winning over Core Democratic groups, including Catholics, Women, Hispanics and White Men. Those are powerful arguments!

With the momentum on her side, Clinton will fight on and continue to put her opponent on display with the electorate, as one who cannot win against the Republicans, is not battle tested, and lacks the experience to solve the country's huge problems. Obama, on the other hand must face the music and explain to his voters why he can't close the deal despite his huge money advantage.
http://boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_ opinion/oped/articles/2008/04/23/clinton _victory_creates_another_stalemate/

Indiana will be a crucial state for Hillary in the next couple of weeks. The momentum and the support of key individuals and groups in Indiana will be a great help to her as she strives to convince undecided voters that she is a real fighter who will put their best interests at heart. So far she has lived up to the challenge, and has struck a cord with voters. Now we must sit back and see if she can continue to defy the mainstream media, the pundits and pollsters who say she can't win, and want her to quit.

The Pa Primary was a real test for Hillary, she proved that she can win to fight another day. For Obama he looked tired, defeated and unable to connect with the very voters he needs to win in November. Instead of facing the music and taking his lumps, he ran off to another state much like a puppy with his tail between his legs. Clinton's ad that ran in Pa in the last days leading up to the primary vote, must have struck a cord with many voters, "If you can't stand the heat, get out of the Kitchen." Well that is exactly what Obama did. Is that what Obama will do whenever he is confronted with a national crisis? Run for the hills!!
The more voters see and hear Obama on the stump, the more they wonder if he has what it takes to win. Lofty speeches and empty words don't equate into victory.

The New Clinton Math may at the end resonate with voters and the undecided superdelegates, despite the conventional wisdom that the candidate with the most pledged delegates or popular vote should get the reward.

When the momentum shifts and voters line up behind one candidate as they did throughout Pa, then voters have a tough decision to make. When the electoral map looks like it favors one candidate as it does for Hillary, then voters have a tough decision to make. When core Democrats,Catholics, Women,White Men,Senior Citizens, Blue Collar Workers,and Hispanics line up behind one candiate as they have with Hillary, then voters have a tough  decision to make. When Reagan Democrats line up behind one candidate as they have for Hillary, then voters have a tough decision to make. When one candidate looks like his balloon is deflating as it does for Obama, then voters have a tough decision to make. When a candidate wins by double digit 10 point wins in all the rustbelt regions (Ohio, New Jersey, Pa) as Hillary has accomplished, then voters have a tough decision to make. When one candidate can only muster advantages among Blacks and voters under 25 years of age, as Obama is doing, then voters have a tough decision to make. When one candidate outspends the other by 4 to 1 margins and can't win, as Obama has shown, then the voters have a tough decision to make.

We now know and understand who the real fighter is in this race, the candidate who never gives in and never gives up. That is the kind of President this country needs and deserves. Not a candidate that runs on empty with no proven record. Yes the question mark has been raised and the equation is yet to be solved in this race, and may go unsolved all the way to Denver.

THANK YOU PENNSYLVANIA!

http://blog.hillaryclinton.com/blog/main/2008/04/23/134937

Read my Editorial Comments: "Tide is Turning"

http://earthfrenzyradio.blogspot.com/2008/04/tide-is-turning-as-clinton-rocks-obama.html

Poll
Can Hillary Win The Nomination
Yes: It's looking Better Every Day
No: Will Never Happen

Votes: 121
Results : Vote Link : Polls

Display:


Re: The New Clinton Math Raises Eyebrows (2.00 / 2)

Please post proof of 4-1.  It does not exist, so i am curious as to how you will defend that statement.


by Bobby Obama on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:53:19 AM EST

Re: The New Clinton Math Raises Eyebrows (1.66 / 6)

"Instead of facing the music and taking his lumps, he ran off to another state much like a puppy with his tail between his legs."

Any time you want to stop positing this mind-numbingly stupid phrase that's fine with me too...

Unless you are willing to own up to the hypocrisy of Clinton leaving states before the votes are tallied too...


McCain/Palin... even scarier than Bush/Cheney... and that's saying something!
by JenKinFLA on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 11:14:38 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The New Clinton Math Raises Eyebrows (2.00 / 0)

Given the work the Obama people have done in a contest that was essentially a stand alone for six weeks, it was a bit ungracious. Make all the excuses for him you like, there's no getting round the fact.


by ottovbvs on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 03:01:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The New Clinton Math Raises Eyebrows (2.00 / 1)

He always leaves the state the night of the primary even when he was won.


I can see Lake Erie from where I live, so can I please run the Navy?
by hootie4170 on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 05:19:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I don't see how (none / 0)

He spent six weeks with them; do you think they minded if he headed to the next state the day of their primary?

It seems strange to call him on that of all things, especially when Clinton hasn't even campaigned in some states.


In this avalanche, the pebbles get to vote.
by Dracomicron on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 05:25:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The New Clinton Math Raises Eyebrows (none / 0)

I don't agree with Jen -
But the comment is definitely NOT troll ratable.
Uprated.
by johnnygunn on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 08:06:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The New Clinton Math Raises Eyebrows (2.00 / 1)

With all due respect - going from 20% to 10% in just weeks is not a "stunning victory."  It was a do or die victory.  The math hasn't changed at all in the general scheme.  


by SovSov on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 03:00:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The New Clinton Math Raises Eyebrows (2.00 / 1)

In fact, it is now much harder to get the delegates (or popular votes for that matter), with her last best chance to make up ground done.  She netted ten delegates, and what, like 200,000 votes?  Not. Catching. Up.  You can't lose 11 elections in a row and expect that winning three states will make up for it. She'll win a few more, as well, but she can't catch up.  There is no recency effect, the states that are voting now are no more important than all of the ones he racked up wins in.


by nwgates on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 03:28:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The New Clinton Math Raises Eyebrows (none / 0)

The 4 to 1 ratio is the approximate amount that he has outspent Clinton in all of the contests thus far. In Pennsylvania he outspent her either 3 or 2 to 1 depending on which commentator is being more accurate or more truthful with their statistics. Hey, the bottom line in this argument is that he has vastly outspent her and still is having difficulty putting her away. That doesn't bode well for him.


Steven Shaman Publisher Skywatch-Media News
by steve468 on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 04:02:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The New Clinton Math Raises Eyebrows (none / 0)

Obama can not have outspent Clinton 4 to 1 "in all of the contests thus far" simply because he has not raised four times as much money as Clinton.

Want to check your math? Or, I dunno, maybe look it up?


www.thingsyoungerthanmccain.com
by LandStander on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 04:53:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The New Clinton Math Raises Eyebrows (none / 0)

Who cares how much money he spent in PA....He had and he spent it, it's not like she wouldn't have spent it if she had it.  Plus she had a 15 year headstart in PA, she was born and raised there and has, arguably, the best name recognition among recent Democrat(you can't put money on that). For him, and lets use a Clinton argument, to be unknown and walk in her backyard and only lose by 9 points is a damn good showing.   Lets take a look at the state Obama was raised in, Hawaii, where he won 76-24.  Now thats a blowout.


I can see Lake Erie from where I live, so can I please run the Navy?
by hootie4170 on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 05:28:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The New Clinton Math Raises Eyebrows (none / 0)

The 4 to 1 ratio which I referred to in this diary was an overall spending advantage if we took into account all of the contests thus far. In Pa, I believe the ratio was either 3 or 2/1 depending on who is keeping more accurate and honest statistics. Either way it calculates into a huge Obama cash and advertising blitz compared to Clinton. However, this has not helped him to close the deal with Democrats, and in some respects it has been a disadvantage to be labeled as the frontfrunner with an endless war chest.


Steven Shaman Publisher Skywatch-Media News
by steve468 on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 04:15:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The New Clinton Math Raises Eyebrows (none / 0)

Just look here! This isn't so complicated, and you are outright lying...

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/index. asp

Obama has spent a total of $26 million more than Clinton through March. That isn't 4-to-1. That's not even close to 2-to-1. Unless he spent more than $100 million in PA (which he did not) than he has spent nowhere near double what Clinton has spent throughout this entire contest.

In fact, if you look at total fundraising numbers, it is mathematically impossible for Obama to have spent twice as much money as Clinton because he did not raise twice as much money as Clinton.


www.thingsyoungerthanmccain.com
by LandStander on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 05:04:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

It was two to one, very slightly over (none / 0)

what won PA for Hillary was the Democratic machine and negative campaigning, operation chaos and, alas, racism.


by barnowl on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 07:11:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The New Clinton Math Raises Eyebrows (2.00 / 3)

I'm less concerned...Obama is only 300 delegates away from the nomination after last night - that is hitting the magic number.  Clinton is 459, or so, away.

If the rest of the election follows as the polls show he will only need 80-90 more superdelegates to clinch.  Hillary, on the other hand, would have to take the remaining Supers at a rate of 160-40 in order to even tie Obama's likely delegate lead.

I bet Obama ties her in Superdelegates by N.C. and Indiana - and that will be a watershed moment in the race.

Your right that Indiana is a must win.


Bring Back MyDD - Just say No to Rec'ing Candidate Diaries.
by CardBoard on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:56:40 AM EST

Re: The New Clinton Math Raises Eyebrows (2.00 / 3)

Wrong. Delegates don't matter - what matters is whatever metric the Clintons are pushing THIS WEEK.


by Democratic Unity on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 12:09:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The New Clinton Math Raises Eyebrows (none / 0)

Yeah, remember, it was all about pledged delegates.  Then it was all about super, errr, "automatic" delegates.  Then it was about primaries and not caucuses.  Then it was about who has won more "big" states.  Now it's about the popular vote (including a contested election, and a state where she was the only one on the ballot.)


"We have said since Iowa that this is a race for delegates."
-Howard Wolfson
by belicheat on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 05:25:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The New Clinton Math Raises Eyebrows (none / 0)

It is sexist and offensive to refer to a female candidate as "the Clintons." Hillary is her own person and is definitely her own senator. Terms like Billary and "the Clintons"are demeaning and imply Hillary is chattel.

Respect all professional women and refer to her as Senator Clinton, Hillary Clinton or simply Hillary. Bill is retired from office.


Jon Winkleman
by Jon Winkleman on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 09:54:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Indiana (2.00 / 3)

SUSA 4/14-16: C 45, O 50

We'll see how she does in a state without a going-in advantage of over twenty points :-)


"This election is not about ideology, it's about competence." -Michael Dukakis
by MBNYC on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:58:10 AM EST

Re: Indiana (2.00 / 2)

We all know how inaccurate the polls have been as they have shown in Pa when most all of them had shown her with just a 3 or 4 point lead. It is time that you and others learn that polls like money don't equate into a win.


Steven Shaman Publisher Skywatch-Media News
by steve468 on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 11:06:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Indiana (2.00 / 0)

The PA polls were extremely accurate - the win was at 8.6% (it now appears) and the polling average was at 7.7%


Bring Back MyDD - Just say No to Rec'ing Candidate Diaries.
by CardBoard on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 11:09:39 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: 4-1=10+3 Still Holds True (2.00 / 2)

Your in fantasy land! The Pa polls were not accurate in that they indicated that her lead was in the low single digits. The only poll that showed her with a double digit lead was the SUSA poll and at the last minute the Zogby poll, which turned out to be the most acccurate, despite bloggers who have said their polling was a farce. BTW,the margin of victory is 10% as is being reported by all of the mainstream media this morning, not this Obama math you quote. Oh and another thing, I believe it was Obama himself that quoated that "50+1 equates into a victory", and that A win is a win. Gee you people are so amazing!


Steven Shaman Publisher Skywatch-Media News
by steve468 on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 11:21:24 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: 4-1=10+3 Still Holds True (2.00 / 1)

Per Political Wire: "Though most articles this morning say Sen. Hillary Clinton beat Sen. Barack Obama last night in Pennsylvania by 10 points, the official tally actually shows her margin at 8.6%."  Most Articles were written before deadline and all the votes were tallied.

If one discounted PPP, and read the commentary from Rassmussen which said late breakers would go to Clinton 2-1, the average was 7.7.

Insider Advantage +7
Zogby +10
Suffolk +10
Rassmussen +5
Stategic Vision +7
Quin +7
SUSA +6

Reality may be fantasy land


Bring Back MyDD - Just say No to Rec'ing Candidate Diaries.
by CardBoard on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 11:32:17 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: 4-1=10+3 Still Holds True (none / 0)

Her own internals had her at 11%.

SUSA, Zogby and American Research had her at 10% or higher.

Most others had her between 6% to 8%.

So what?

She won. She said she would win and she did. It's a victory.

The margin of victory is very close to what most people were expecting. It was less than she needed to significantly cut into Obama's lead, but enough to show she's still in the fight.

Can we stop with the "you people" now?


by jdusek on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 12:35:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: 4-1=10+3 Still Holds True (2.00 / 1)

She did slightly better than the polls, garnering 9% of the vote.


We care about politics because we know politics matters for people's lives and opportunities.
by politicsmatters on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 02:48:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Indiana (2.00 / 1)

"Most of them had shown her with just a 3 or 4 point lead."

C'mon, spill.  Show me the "most" you were talking about (presumably, predictive of a 3 or 4 oint win).  This is fiction.  Most predicted a single digit win and guess what--they got it right.

HRC beat BO in Pennsylvania.  Nice job!  Too bad the Democratic nomination is not based solely on the results from NY, CA, NJ, OH, PA, and whatever other states HRC won.  If that were so, why have any in other states?

The level of intellectual dishonesty in so many of these arguments is just ridiculous.


by Ray in AK on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 04:08:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Indiana (none / 0)

That poll was done for Downs Center, which used a completely different method than what Survey USA uses. Using the method Survey USA uses, the result is a 16% lead for Clinton, 55% to 39%. The poll was conducted just a few days before the Downs Center poll.

http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollRepo rt.aspx?g=d8b46eaa-c463-408e-98d2-b830eb 122d39


Restore America's Strength.
by RJEvans on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 06:40:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

One answer to those questions: (2.00 / 1)

Clinton was always going to win OH, PA, TX.   It has nothing to do with momentum lost nor support gained, it's just that these states came later in the line-up.

The temporal structure of this race is an accident of history (how various states decided to schedule their primaries).  Had the red-state caucuses been scheduled for May instead of February, this race would very likely be over by now, with Clinton's "string of wins" in CA, NJ, MA, OH, TX, PA and FL making her the nominee.

Ah, what could've been...  

For my money, the biggest mystery of this entire primary season, and the one on which I hope to see many academic papers and dissertations published -- not to mention investigative reports performed by whatever shred of credible journalism is left after this season -- is the question "Why DID Obama win those caucuses?"


by miker2008 on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 11:01:50 AM EST

Re: One answer to those questions: (2.00 / 1)

I think this entire primary will feed scholarly discussions in poli sci journals and classes for years to come...


McCain/Palin... even scarier than Bush/Cheney... and that's saying something!
by JenKinFLA on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 11:16:03 AM EST
[ Parent ]

If you are correct then why (1.00 / 6)

does Obama have to cancel the next debate and cower behind the closet door?  He has demonstrated his lack of character since the most recent debate.  He reminds me so much of my little 7-pound poodle.  When we are in the car with the windows are rolled up and she sees a big dog, she barks, growls, and calls him all kinds of names in dog-talk; however, when I roll the window down, she jumps down into the floor and hides behind my legs.  A perfect description of Obama since the debate.


by macmcd on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 02:44:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: If you are correct then why (none / 0)

Nice comparing Barack to a dog, don't see how that could be offensive, I mean sure you could also say that the poodles like Hillary, but then it'd be Misogyny, seriously do you people even try to think about how stupid you sound sometimes?


by Socraticsilence on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 03:48:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Obama hasn't been on Fox (none / 0)

it is a shame he agreed to that last "debate" especially on Disney.
He's the front runner, he doesn't have to participate in another debate, especially since it's likely to be a hit job.
by barnowl on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 07:16:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: One answer to those questions: (2.00 / 0)

You are exactly right but then these are exactly the reasons why Obama is going to lose them November. And you know what that means. Unfortunately, you are not able to follow your perfectly reasonable logic to its conclusion because it doesn't accord with your prejudices. Just take the step and face reality.


by ottovbvs on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 03:05:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Why did Obama win the caucuses?: (none / 0)

For the same reason that the exit polls are messed up. It isn't a secret ballot and most people are extremely reluctant to say in public they aren't voting for the black guy. They're afraid they look like racists in front of other people even though their preferred vote against him may be based on Obama's inexperience or something else.


by ellend818 on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 03:56:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Why did Obama win the caucuses?: (none / 0)

Give me a break. All us sexist racist guys had to do was support Edwards. Oh, yeah, we did at least beat Clinton in Iowa.


by IowaMike on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 04:08:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Why did Obama win the caucuses?: (none / 0)

That would make sense if the polls had wildly overstated Obama support thus far.

Most of the time, they've shown typical (ie compared to previous primaries), with SUSA being the "Gold Standard" this time.


by Huck on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 07:00:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: One answer to those questions: (none / 0)

The short answer is, effort.  Clinton's team assumed that things would be well wrapped up after super-tuesday, and that the caucuses just weren't that important.  She got out organized by a superior Obama ground game.  And people talk about "Obama not being able to close it out," or the fact that he's the "front-runner."  She was the front runner for just about two whole years.

This race was Clinton's to lose, and guess what... she lost it.


"We have said since Iowa that this is a race for delegates."
-Howard Wolfson
by belicheat on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 05:29:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The New Clinton Math Raises Eyebrows (2.00 / 2)

Obama spent money on Pennsylvania because he has pleanty of money.

The Party would be foolish to turn it's back on a fundraising machine like the Obama campaign.


It's time to restore balance and fairness to our economy,... It's time to stop giving tax cuts to corporations that ship jobs overseas... - Barack Obama
by Lefty Coaster on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 11:05:35 AM EST

That's a very good point! (2.00 / 2)

It occurred me to recently that some proportion of Obama's endorsements by SDs are attributable to that factor.  Would be interesting to correlate endorsements with re-election schedules.  Who is running for re-election THIS November as opposed to 2 years from now?

Regarding your "sig" line:  Obama, his surrogates, and the MSM went negative against Hillary very very early in this campaign:

1) Obama's "D-Punjab" racial slur - June 2007

  1. MSNBC debate hit job against Hillary - October 2007
  2.  Jesse Jackson Jr. accusing Hillary of "not crying for Katrina victims" - NH primary.
  3.  Obama's snide: "You're likeable enough" - early January debate.
  4. Dailykos bloggers launching vile adjectives at Hillary - at least as early as January 2008, probably much earlier but that's when I started reading.
  5. Obama's infamous "race baiter" memo - SC primary in January.
  6. Obama's relentless attacks on the Clinton presidency (can YOU name the person who should've been president in the 1990s instead of Clinton?).

Hillary has attacked Obama on his experience and policy choices, which is EXPECTED IN A CAMPAIGN.  It is Obama that has used character assassination (e.g., Rovian tactics)  


by miker2008 on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 11:22:35 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: That's a very good point! (2.00 / 0)

I don't know a lot about some of the points above, but some of these claims are silly.

4) How is that a negative attack?  Is she, or is she not, likable enough to win?  Are we really parsing his intonation of specific words now?  Even if he did not mean it, how is it a negative attack?

5) DailyKos can't be considered part of Obama's campaign.  Sorry.  Just like MyDD or Hillaryis44 can't be counted as part of Hillary's campaign.  And Hillaryis44 is at least as bad as DKos.

7 Link?  Maybe I missed the place where Obama said Bush Sr. would have been a better president.


by ProgressiveDL on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 11:54:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: That's a very good point! (2.00 / 1)

4) Ok, you're right, one comment does not a character assassination make.  So let's add to it his "Hillary attacks me when she feels down periodically", his and his surrogates' smirking claims that she is "desperate", "will do anything to win", is "a monster", is "disingenuous" [for seeking revotes in MI and FL] and you have a pattern of character assassination and the classic wink-wink form of sexism that most men know about and many practice, but few own up to.

5) Beg to differ.  Dailykos has been, and continues to be, the launchpad for a wide range of pro-Obama activities, including harassing pro-Hillary bloggers (not just online but using their personal e-mails and phones), deluging Hillary supporters (Mayor Nutter & Geraldine Ferraro, to name just two) with hate mail, and flooding MSM outlets with complaints about fairness (the recent ABC campaign).   Dailykos gets mentioned in the MSM as well, so you can't really deny they're a PR force on Obama's behalf.

7) In PA Obama said that the "bitter" people suffered under Clinton's presidency.  That's an untruth and anti-Democrat.   He's attacked Clinton on NAFTA (which is another untruth).   His surrogates and MSM supporters have made reference to "the blue dress" (really vile campaign tactic).   There is more, but this gives you the flavor.


by miker2008 on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 12:11:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Vis-a-vis #4 (1.00 / 1)

Snide denigration is incredibly negative.  Just as Obama's infantile middle-finger comment in several of his speeches after his dismal performance in the debate.  Of course, none of this harms Hillary in any way but it does show that he is not presidential material.  Everybody knows that the most innocent sounding remark can be absolutely negative and Obama is an expert at the snide and denigrating.


by macmcd on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 02:49:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Vis-a-vis #4 (2.00 / 0)

Yeah and whining "do you need a pillow, why is everyone always aksing me questions 1st?" and mocking peoples supporters "see the light" bullshit that's what a really mature person does!


by Socraticsilence on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 03:51:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Vis-a-vis #4 (none / 0)

Oh my god, he was not flipping her off.  Can you please look at the evidence?  If you want to argue that the audience thought he was flipping her off, fine.  I don't know either way.  But two fingers scratching your face (and there is incontrovertible evidence that it was two fingers) does not equal "flipping someone off."  Sorry.


by ProgressiveDL on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 05:22:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Oh, come on. (none / 0)


by barnowl on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 07:20:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: That's a very good point! (2.00 / 1)

1) You know that Clinton called herself D-Punjab long before Obama did, right?


by jdusek on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 12:37:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: That's a very good point! (2.00 / 1)

My sig line is a quote from this morning's editorial in the New York Times.

They are correct. Since Hilary stopped campaigning as an incumbent, her campaign has amounted to one giant mud slide.

The N.Y.T. Editors know Hillary bears the lion's share of the responsibility for the negative tone.

Polls also show the majority of Democrats know Hillary bears the lion's share of the responsibility for the negative tone.

Pull you heasd out of....the sand and you will be able to see that Hillary bears the lion's share of the responsibility for the negative tone too.


It's time to restore balance and fairness to our economy,... It's time to stop giving tax cuts to corporations that ship jobs overseas... - Barack Obama
by Lefty Coaster on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 03:47:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: That's a very good point! (none / 0)

Hillary has attacked Obama on his experience and policy choices,

Which one of those two encompasses his church and passing aquaintances?


by Socraticsilence on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 03:49:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The New Clinton Math Raises Eyebrows (2.00 / 2)

It is so amazing isn't it. Keep justifying some reason to nominate Obama. He has more money, he has a slim lead in delegates, the party must give him the nomination. You might not like this, but the party doesn't owe him or Clinton anything. They have to prove to the voters who is more electable, and he hasn't proven that yet. If he wins both Indiana and NC then maybe he has an argument, but for now he is in a stalemate. The Big Pa win for Hillary will help her tremendously in Indiana with much the same demographics and regions as Ohio, Pa, and New Jersey, all states that she won by convincing numbers. Give credit where credit is due and stop crying over Obama's spilled milk!


Steven Shaman Publisher Skywatch-Media News
by steve468 on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 11:12:39 AM EST

Re: The New Clinton Math Raises Eyebrows (2.00 / 1)

Many of us have given Clinton the credit she is due... only to be faced with diary after diary and post after post indicating the PA victory being more than it was....


McCain/Palin... even scarier than Bush/Cheney... and that's saying something!
by JenKinFLA on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 11:17:37 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The New Clinton Math Raises Eyebrows (2.00 / 2)

He has way more money than Hillary.
He has an insurmountable lead in delegates.
He has shown to be very electable, and according to Clinton herself, he can beat McCain
Even if he loses IN, he still maintains all of these leads.
She won PA way off of her highs. This is a problem.

What "justifying" is needing aside from the facts? Obama won, there are not that many delegates left. NC and IN will erase Clinton's lead here in PA and maybe even surpass it.

I wonder if Kentucky will become a "must win" state in this silly continuous game of goal-post moving.


by Zotnix on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 11:18:36 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Speaking of "goal posts" ... here's (2.00 / 1)

a thought question for you.   Consider a scenario in which, come June 3, no one has reached the magic 2025 number, but one candidate is leading by 1 pledged delegate.  Is that enough to guarantee that person the nomination?   Or is it just random noise and arguably we have a tie?

If not 1 pledged delegate, then how about 5 pledged delegates?  10 pledged delegates?   You get my point.   This is what the SDs are facing here, and no one is giving them any help or guidance.  

Howard Dean (supposedly from the intellectual/brainy wing of the party -- as opposed to the low-brow archie-bunker wing) is failing us miserably here.  It's not too late for him to plant a stake in the ground.  He should come up with a principled approach because two trains are approaching each other on a single track, and he's the guy holding the switch lever.


by miker2008 on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 11:30:45 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Speaking of "goal posts" ... here's (2.00 / 1)

So one day Achilles challenged the tortoise to a race...


by username2 on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 11:34:09 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Interesting. Me, I'm a statistician and (none / 0)

a scientist, not a logician or philosopher.   So my solution to the sorites problem is empirical.    Sample the phenomenon and get a distribution of responses.  Find the mean and standard deviation of the distribution, then pick a point on the distribution that constitutes your "threshold" for success.  

I assume the magical 2025 is calculated on the basis of some notion of what constitutes a suitable "majority".   Can anyone remind me what proportion of the total delegate count 2025 is?   My understanding is that it's the number excluding FL and MI.  So it is simple majority, a 2/3 majority, or something else?


by miker2008 on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 11:55:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Interesting. Me, I'm a statistician and (none / 0)

Speaking as a fellow statistician...  My understanding is that it's a simple majority, and the Greeks had not discovered p-values.

On a semi-related note, I think Florida should have been decided with a coin toss in 2000, as 200-something votes was well within the margin of error.


by username2 on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:38:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Speaking of "goal posts" ... here's (2.00 / 1)

As an Obama supporter, if she can cut his pledged delegate lead to 50 or fewer without having to count Florida or Michigan, I would be concerned.  If it was that low by June 3rd, I wouldn't fault superdelegates who decided to go with her (since that would mean she's had huge blowout victories between now and then).

I realize 50 is an arbitrary number, but it seems as good as any.  100 is a huge lead at this point.  75 is a solid lead.  25 or less is basically tied.  25-50 is a lead, but not much of one at all.


by ProgressiveDL on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 11:56:50 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Speaking of "goal posts" ... here's (none / 0)

50 or fewer won't happen.  If she wins by these margins:

GU: 35-65
NC: 50-50
IN: 40-60
WV: 30-70
OR: 45-55
KY: 30-70
PR: 35-65
MT: 45-55
SD: 45-55

which I think we can all agree is unlikely bordering on the impossible, the season would end with Obama having an 83 pledged delegate lead.


by Rorgg on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 04:57:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Speaking of "goal posts" ... here's (none / 0)

That's good to hear.


by ProgressiveDL on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 05:20:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The New Clinton Math Raises Eyebrows (2.00 / 1)

Your argument is weak!
1) He doesn't have an insurmountable lead in delegates, we don't know the exact figure out of Pa yet, but a 130 delegate lead is a laugher.

2) He may have more money but so what. His money hasn't brought him victory. Rather he has wasted his money thinking he could best Hillary with his fortune.

3) He hasn't shown himself to be electable as was clearly evident last night, in Clinton's landslide and impressive victory across the state.

4)If he loses Indiana, this race will continue all the way to Denver as Tim Russert indicated this morning on MSNBC.

5)The pledged delegates will not equate into the nomination for Obama, since the superdelegates are going to decide this election. READ MY LIPS: SUPER DELEGATES WILL DECIDE.

6) The momentum and the argument is now on Clinton's side. How can Obama justify the reward when he has shown every time that he cannot win the big swing states that are absolutely essential  to winning in November?

7)Obama cannot win without the support of Clinton voters. As was shown in exit polling last night he is in trouble with many Democratic voters, who have said they will vote for McCain if he is the nominee. That equates into a big loss for Obama if he should be the nominee.


Steven Shaman Publisher Skywatch-Media News
by steve468 on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 11:36:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]

OK George Bush: (2.00 / 1)

 READ MY LIPS: SUPER DELEGATES WILL DECIDE.

They won't decide like the Florida electoral votes did in 2000, with all of them tipping the balance.  They will be split between the camps just as the committed supers and the pledged delegates of every state, which you Clinton cheerleaders seem to ignore.  A ten-point win in a big state gets exclipsed by a 20-point loss in a state half the size.  Obama essentially won the nomination in the weeks after Feb. 5, but not by "winning" 11 states in a row.  He did it by racking up huge margins in all of them.

Winning 2/3 of remaining supers is a steep, steep hill, especially when you see which way the super endorsement bandwagon has been going lately.


by corph on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 02:43:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The New Clinton Math Raises Eyebrows (2.00 / 2)

The reason to nominate Obama is that, after Hillary's last, best hope, she failed to close the deal.  She failed to close the gap!  The handful of delegates she won from Pennsylvania - a state that has always been hers to lose - is smaller than the number of supers that Obama has picked up within  the past month.

Obama has more delegates.
Obama has more states (which the opposition denigrates as "boutique states")
Obama has more popular votes.

The false charges of elitism against a self-made man, coming from a multimillionaire, have failed to stick.  

Clinton came into this campaign with tremendous name recognition, having been married to a previous holder of the office.  Obama was an unknown, with an unfortunate name.  Yet he has managed to make tremendous strides against Clinton's advantage in name recognition, through the power of hope, and the support of thousands of donors - ordinary people inspired by his message.

Clinton's candidacy is a lost cause.  If her name was anything other than "Clinton" she'd have dropped out a month ago; only a name made famous by someone else keeps her candidacy afloat.  Barely.

It is Hillary's milk that has spilled. She has lost.  Pennsylvania was her last chance, and she eked out a victory so narrow that it makes no practical difference at all.  Obama is ahead by almost as many delegates as he was yesterday, and North Carolina will easily erase Clinton's temporary gain.


Graveyards of Illinois - http://www.graveyards.com/
by MattHucke on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 11:27:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The New Clinton Math Raises Eyebrows (none / 0)

Yup.


by mikeinsf on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 11:34:32 AM EST
[ Parent ]

If you were correct (2.00 / 0)

then Obama and his followers would not be so hysterical about wanting/needing Hillary to get out of the campaign NOW.  The fear in the comments is shockingly clear.  Those of us who support Hillary are perfectly calm and comfortable with working for her to win state after state.  In the end, Hillary will be the nominee and she will be our next POTUS.


by macmcd on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 02:57:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: If you were correct (none / 0)

...and your poodle will be appointed Ambassador to the United Nations.  You're a true believer -- we get it.


I'm as strong as a bull moose, and you can use me to the limit. - Teddy Roosevelt
by fogiv on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 04:43:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: If you were correct (none / 0)

It isn't Obama's fault that Hillary and her supporters can't count.  She is winning state after state? She is on a win streak of 1 and has won 3 of the last 7 contests. She may be tenacious but she fails elementary arithmetic.


by matchles on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 05:57:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The New Clinton Math Raises Eyebrows (2.00 / 1)

Let's see...  So far we've found that the following things don't count:
    1. caucuses.
    2. pledged delegates.
    3. fundraising ability.
    4. milk outside its container.

I think I'll just give up trying to figure out the rules you want to play by.  By the way, if you actually believe Clinton will win, you should head over to Intrade and make some serious cash...


by username2 on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 11:31:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The New Clinton Math Raises Eyebrows (2.00 / 1)

Don't forget African American and educated white voters don't count because they will automatically come home to Hillary no matter what.

/snark


by ProgressiveDL on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 11:58:08 AM EST
[ Parent ]

The only justification: (2.00 / 1)

He's winning.  She's losing.  Period.


by mikeinsf on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 11:33:18 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The only justification: (1.00 / 2)

Let's see how many tears you can shed for Obama and how much harder you can cry and complain. The more you cry the more we will celebrate in the end.


Steven Shaman Publisher Skywatch-Media News
by steve468 on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 11:39:45 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The only justification: (none / 0)

What are you talking about?


by mikeinsf on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 11:49:43 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The only justification: (2.00 / 1)

Tears?  We're not crying.  We're CELEBRATING!

Obama is winning.  Yesterday, Hillary FAILED to close the gap.  Obama was up by about 150 delegates, and he's still up by well over 130.  

Her famous name, her and Bill's millions of dollars, didn't get her to the nominations.  We won't have another president who became famous solely through being related to someone famous.

North Carolina will be an easy win for Obama, and that will more than erase the tiny, tiny victory that Hillary won yesterday.  

The only way the Clintons can eke out a win is to plant a dead hooker in Obama's bedroom the day before the next primary.


Graveyards of Illinois - http://www.graveyards.com/
by MattHucke on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 12:01:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The only justification: (none / 0)

So what you're saying is this isn't about a battle of ideas and ideals.

It's about his-team-vs-your-team?

I think that explains a lot, actually...


by Huck on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 07:26:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Zzzzzzzzzzzz (2.00 / 0)


by macmcd on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 02:58:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

If the lead is so slim how come Clinton can't (2.00 / 0)

catch him?


My candidate lost fair and square. So did yours. Get over it and let's kick McSame's ass!
by RLMcCauley on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 11:40:10 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Read My Lips! (2.00 / 1)

Listen and learn!  TWO WORDS SOLVE THE EQUATION.

Momentum and Superdelegates.

Get it Yet! If not you will soon find out or maybe not, if not too bad for you.


Steven Shaman Publisher Skywatch-Media News
by steve468 on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 11:49:27 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Read My Lips! (none / 0)

Momentum from 1 win? Ok. And when she loses NC the momentum will be Obama's again I guess.


My candidate lost fair and square. So did yours. Get over it and let's kick McSame's ass!
by RLMcCauley on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 12:14:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Read My Lips! (2.00 / 1)

Momentum doesn't exist. You could go back two months ago and predict how most of the states would go given the coalition and regional strengths of each candidate. After super tuesday it was predicted Barack Obama would quite possibly win everything up to the March contests and he did. Similarly it was predicted ages ago that Ohio, Texas, Rhode Island, Pennsylvania were good states for her, which they were (texas delegate awards being set asside for the moment).


Proudly joining the legions of people and states that don't matter on May 20th.
by Obama Independent on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 12:37:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Funny. And here I thought it was Clinton (2.00 / 1)

who had to catch up. What Math allows her to do that?


My candidate lost fair and square. So did yours. Get over it and let's kick McSame's ass!
by RLMcCauley on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 11:37:34 AM EST

Re: The New Clinton Math Raises Eyebrows (2.00 / 2)

I am very glad Sen. Clinton secured a very impressive win in Pennsylvania.  It is true I think, however, that this diary contains quite a number of unsubstantiated assertions, one echoed across the blogosphere and in many diaries and comments here.  Consider the first link provided, presumably to substantiate the claims in the immediately preceding paragraph.  First, the source nowhere makes the 4-1 claim, at least nowhere that I could find.  Second it quotes the Clinton campaign as claiming 3-1, not 4-1 - the campaign, not hard numbers from disinterested parties.  So 4-1 is not substantiated anywhere in the sourced blog and even the Clinton campaign is not claiming Steve's 4-1.  I have seen 4-1, 3-1, 2-1; presumably these are questions of fact that someone should be able to answer without spin.

I also think the inference many Clinton supporters are drawing from the disparity is overplayed.  His spending appears to have worked to marginally close the gap from 15-20% a month ago to the still impressive 10% margin.  But think through this logically.  Clinton has universal name recognition and people have a formed opinion about her.  Sen. Obama, while probably with high name familiarity at this point, needed to more sharply define his message before the Pennsylvania folks.  He had to spend more to compensate, particularly since he had no reservoir of good will to counter the portrait shaped in part by Wright, flag pin, etc.  He needed to shape perceptions in a way Sen. Clinton did not; they did not start at the same line, so to speak.  He also has money to burn and part of the strategy was a dual-track where spending served both primary and GE purposes, from their vantage point.  That too is spin but it does not strike me as beyond the pale.  Most significantly, considering the demographic factors that have held throughout the campaign, Obama faced a significant structural deficit that he had to overcome; PA is among the oldest and most Catholic states in the union, also with many voters who may be somewhat adverse to a black candidate ("Mississipi between Pittsburgh and Philly", and that is not comparing it to AAs in Mississippi and the inference in the analogy is I think pretty obvious.  How true it is I really don't know). Finally, are we really going to claim that being out-raised and outspent by her opponents by several multiples is somehow an overall strength?  Still, it appears to have been less effective than desired and it should raise questions for Obama's supporters and should raise some eyebrows among super delegates.  I just imagine as a group they are too seasoned to fall for obvious spin.

I do believe this impressive Clinton victory is the turning of the tide and that she will proceed to grow in strength moving forward while Obama will continue to weaken, NC perhaps notwithstanding.  Whether that will be enough to overcome his various leads I do not know but I can hope.  But the reasons for this turn of events are not fairly described by campaign spin.


"We live entangled in webs of endless deceit, often self-deceit, but with a little honest effort, it is possible to extricate ourselves from them". -- NC
by Trond Jacobsen on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 11:39:00 AM EST

Re: The New Clinton Math Raises Eyebrows (1.50 / 2)

The facts are facts whether anyone likes them or not. You can go to any search engine and get the facts, you don't have to believe me or other Clinton Supporters, including yourself if indeed you support her. I will celebrate in the facts as has been reported by the media, even though I disagree with the way that the media has treated Clinton in this campaign. You can try to justify your argument all you like, but what does that prove in the eyes of the voter. Clearly Clinton has shown her strenghts as well as her weaknesses. Obama has shown nothing, except how low he can stoop with his perpetual complaining and artificial explanations for his loses and his failure to close the deal with the voters and the Democratic Party. That is the bottom line in this race, and one that all voters must carefully consider.


Steven Shaman Publisher Skywatch-Media News
by steve468 on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 11:45:58 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The New Clinton Math Raises Eyebrows (none / 0)

In my line of work it is the norm for those making a claim to provide evidence to support their claim, not demanding that their audience substantiate it.

I do indeed support Sen. Clinton though I did start as an Edwards supporter and I have observed those like us seem to have less invested in the "Clinton is a saint and Obama is the devil" way of thinking about the campaign or the converse.

About your last few sentences: YOU made a series of claims about the significance of spending disparities to which I responded.  To now say that the issue is not spending but public perception is fine, but it is a shift in your focus.  In that shift I would say it is not clear the public cares about spending disparities, and if that is the new focus, the point of your original diary would appear to have evaporated.  Whatever else one may think about Sen. Obama, I think it is clear he has shown more than "how low he can stoop with his perpetual complaining and artificial explanations", even if that is one of the things he has shown.  Also not sure that "artificial explanations" is the best tact given the 'those states are not significant' claims we hear from the Clinton campaign.

Obama has done things that deserve condemnation as has Clinton, in my view.  


"We live entangled in webs of endless deceit, often self-deceit, but with a little honest effort, it is possible to extricate ourselves from them". -- NC
by Trond Jacobsen on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 12:01:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The New Clinton Math Raises Eyebrows (none / 0)

YES!!!! WITH THIS NEW MATH, THERE IS NO WAY FOR HILLARY TO FAIL!!! AWESOME!!!


I like baked beans.
by SpideyDem on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 11:42:29 AM EST

Re: The New Clinton Math Raises Eyebrows (none / 0)

If you think this is silly, check out this absurd discussion in which a poster says that if rounding to the nearest whole number, one rounds 9.2 to 10 and other examples of innumeracy.*

http://www.mydd.com/comments/2008/4/23/1 35757/738/2#2

*Innumeracy means mathematical illiteracy.


We care about politics because we know politics matters for people's lives and opportunities.
by politicsmatters on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 04:15:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The New Clinton Math Raises Eyebrows (none / 0)

Clintonmatics - I love it.  2 + 2 = whatever gives me a shot at winning.


I like baked beans.
by SpideyDem on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 08:29:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

The New Clinton Math Raises Eyebrows (2.00 / 2)

...for it's sheer absurdity.

Feh.


by edmandspath on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 11:45:48 AM EST

The fight that he could have fought. (2.00 / 3)

The easiest thing that he could have done to show his fighting spirit is to take on the North Carolina debate.

He hinted many time before Pennsylvania debate that he might not joined.    After PA debate, since his performance was so poor, he should have try to redeem himself in another debate.  It will have give him the chance to deliver a better performance.  He could have make it his priority to make it happen.

If the problem is due to schedule conflict, clear it.  If it's due to Howard Dean intervention, tell him of.  

Obama should have fight the NC debate.  But he chose to run.


by JoeySky18 on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 12:16:09 PM EST

Re: The fight that he could have fought. (2.00 / 0)

Uprated because DemUnity doesn't seem to know the rules. You don't troll rate someone simply because you disagree with what someone says.


by Nobama on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 02:54:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

PA is a great win for Hillary. (2.00 / 0)

It is clear that she is the candidate that Democrats want to represent them in the general election in November.  She is the candidate with concrete plans for how to address all the problems that the Bush Administration has created.  Thank god she is the fighter we need to stay in the race in spite of the media and the "Democrat for a Day" votte that Obama's campaign invited me to participate in.


by macmcd on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 03:08:01 PM EST

Re: PA is a great win for Hillary. (none / 0)

It's not at all clear.

In fact, if one thing is clear, it's that some voters want Obama and some voters want Hillary and that there's clearly no consensus.


by Huck on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 07:29:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The New Clinton Math Raises Eyebrows (2.00 / 0)

Excellent diary, Steve! Supporters of the other guy sure don't like hearing the truth. Too bad but that's how it goes. They bought into the hype, the empty rhetoric, and the blank résumé. They beat up on the only successful two-term Democratic president since FDR. They beat up on a woman who has done nothing but serve her country for the past 35 years.


by Nobama on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 03:20:37 PM EST

Re: The New Clinton Math Raises Eyebrows (none / 0)

The truth? The truth is that Clinton is losing. Period.

You know, they know it, we all know it.

Which state of mourning is denial, then anger?


by IowaMike on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 04:10:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The New Clinton Math Raises Eyebrows (none / 0)

LOL!

NEWSFLASH! Hillary is winning! She's going to get the nomination because she's the best candidate.


by Nobama on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 04:15:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The New Clinton Math Raises Eyebrows (none / 0)

delegate lead Obama

popular vote, Obama (now, again if you want to count FL where they didn't campaign so its not a real vote and MI where he wasn't even on the ballot, then, fairly you should count all the people that actually participated in the caucuses where at least Clinton actually campaigned, and she is still behind, watch KO tonight to see the facts)

Money, Obama

She is in second place. Time to move past denial.  She is losing to a Il senator with a funny name. If she can't beat him even though she is the best candidate, how can she beat the more experienced war hero who the media truly loves? And BTW, if she is so in touch with all our problems and communicates them so well, why is she behind in all the measures again? She has run a lousy campaign.


by IowaMike on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:16:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The New Clinton Math Raises Eyebrows (none / 0)

Senator Clinton does not need the "tide to turn" in order to win, she needs a tsunami and to be able to ride it on a surfboard with a rose between her teeth  to win - and that isn't going to happen.

And looking at the high point of her polling figures in PA and what she has now got, the tide is not turning, it is merely dribbling down  through the holes in the ground beneath her feet.


by My Ob on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 04:19:27 PM EST

The Question that the media needs to ask (none / 0)

is how is Hillary going to win the African-American vote in the Fall if she does win the nomination?

The media is all focused on Obama's inability to win the white working class vote but NO ONE is focusing on how Hillary is going to win the African-American vote (which IS the base of the Democratic party NOT the white working class vote).


by puma on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 04:42:22 PM EST

Obama Fan Base in Meltdown Mode (none / 0)

After Hillary's incredibly decisive victory in the fiercely contested and electoral vote-rich state of Pennsylvania, supporters of Barack Obama are terrified of the dismal truths about his electability that have been confirmed, yet again.

His strength in superior fundraising advantage has been nullified, because Pennsylvania demonstrated that character, and not television ads, determine a winner.  

It's back to the calculators for the Obots, screaming about hundredth points of a decimal and pledged delegate totals comprised of suspiciously skewed caucuses and the glaring exlucison of two of the nations largest swing states, Florida and Michigan.  They know that the "don't count all the states" meme is losing its punch.  There was a front page diary on DailyKos explaining point by point how to argue that the popular vote doesn't reflect the will of the people.  As they grow more strident, remember, it's just the increasingly tarnished Obama love-fest spinning further and further out of control.  


Lifelong Democrat, civil rights advocate, former volunteer for Dem candidates. Now Independent.
by BPK80 on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 04:45:45 PM EST

Re: Obama Fan Base in Meltdown Mode (2.00 / 1)

That is all they want to give reference to is the calculator and their decimal point mentality, as if anyone cares. It is really going to come down to who is more electable in the end, despite their argument that he has a slim lead in pledged delegates. They will spin their argument but the facts still exist. He lost by large margins across Pa and the rustbelt last night. How can he justify his claim that he is a winner, when you can't win the states that you must win in the GE. That is the big argument here, not the delegates, not the popular vote, those are primary figures for the political junkies to debate.  In the GE it is a totally different scenario for Obama. He won't have the luxury of relying on caucus states, many of which are safe Republican strongholds to cruise him to victory. Not being battle tested he will have to endure relentless Rev. Wright and Weather Underground attacks on his ties with radical fundamentalists. All of sudden McCain looks like a pretty good alternative to Obama to many voters including many Democrats. That spells real trouble for Dems.


Steven Shaman Publisher Skywatch-Media News
by steve468 on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 05:55:52 PM EST