Why Super Tuesday was better for Hillary

For over 4 weeks the entire media environment has had wall-to-wall positive coverage for Obama.

There was the Kennedy magic and their pull in California and Mass.  And their strength among latinos.

There was Oprah and Caroline Kennedy and Maria Shriver.

There was Obama outspending Clinton on ads considerably.

There were the polls.  Obama pulling ahead in NJ, Cali, Mass.

But........but....

Voters had a different idea.

Yes, Obama won more states.  But will the nominee be decided based on results of caucuses in Idaho, North Dakota, Kansas, Alaska and Utah?  It shouldn't.  Dems will NEVER win those states, regardless of the nominee.  

Tonight, Hillary showed that she represents the best chance for success in the election.  Her candidacy is turning out women and latinos in unheard of numbers.  She is the real deal Democrat, winning in California, New York, New Jersey and Mass.  But her appeal is more than that.  She also wins Oklahoma, Tennesse, Arkansas and Arizona.

According to CNN (forget MSNBC, they don't even try to be fair), she will also emerge with more delegates overall and more delegates won on Super Tuesday.  And she won the overall popular vote.  

Tags: clinton, delegates, obama, results, Super Tuesday (all tags)

Comments

34 Comments

Re: Why Super Tuesday was better for Hillary

Barbara Boxer?

by Jerome Armstrong 2008-02-05 09:23PM | 0 recs
Re: Why Super Tuesday was better for Hillary

If Boxer is true to her word, and I believe she is, we will be seeing her endorse Hillary soon.

by bdog 2008-02-05 09:26PM | 0 recs
Re: Why Super Tuesday was better for Hillary

Boxer said she would be a superdelegate for whoever won California. I don't think she said she would endorse.

by LakersFan 2008-02-05 09:44PM | 0 recs
Re: Why Super Tuesday was better for Hillary

Howard Fineman said not so fast on Barbara Boxer...

by CVDem 2008-02-05 09:29PM | 0 recs
Re: Why Super Tuesday was better for Hillary

You know that ws my hope.

Maybe old man kennedy and kerry can have some humility now lol

What an embarassment.

Infact Oprah , the kennedys that endorsed Obama , the msm that tried to bury here should be swallowing their tongues now .

She isn't going anywhere lol

by lori 2008-02-05 09:25PM | 0 recs
Re: Why Super Tuesday was better for Hillary

You could hear the consternation in Keith Oberman's voice that the Alaska vote count which was less than 600 total was displayed.

Makes you wonder how long he would have talked about the markin of victory in Alaska if that total wasn't on the screen...

I am done with Chris Matthews and Keith Oberman and any news program they are on.

by sonofdonkeykong 2008-02-05 09:34PM | 0 recs
Re: Why Super Tuesday was better for Hillary

That wasn't the total number of voters -- as in many caucus states, the voters elect delegates.  (Those delegates in turn select the delegates to the Dem Natl Convention....)

Next time get your facts straight before impugning someone.  

by Bluebeard 2008-02-05 11:15PM | 0 recs
Re: Why Super Tuesday was better for Hillary

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaska_Demo cratic_caucuses,_2008

I read VOTES.

You saying they have some form of communism up there and normal folk don't get to vote??

by sonofdonkeykong 2008-02-06 04:42PM | 0 recs
Re: Why Super Tuesday was better for Hillary

Yes, I was talking about votes too.  

I was trying to show you that, while some reports of the "votes" in Alaska have a footnote to show that those aren't the actual people who voted but the delegates selected by the caucus voters, others don't.  The numbers you posted in your summary are not the numbers of actual Dem voters in the caucuses, so of course they look like a joke.  

Here's the real rundown straight from the AK Dem party, in which you can see actual voters (listed as "supporters") and resulting delegates listed.

http://www.alaskademevents.org/

Some caucus states' popular votes aren't reported in the tables on Yahoo, CNN, or even Wikipedia (!).   Sometimes they tell you this if you read the fine print, sometimes they don't.  But there are sources for the original info.

(Another example of this, btw, was after Nevada where there was some speculation after the voting was done and the final results came in about who won the popular vote.  Even though Hillary won that state, she actually could've lost the popular vote (after a day or so, it came out that she had won the popular vote).  It's the same deal -- on the day and night of the Nevada caucuses, the media only had the delegate numbers, not the popular vote numbers.  The delegate numbers came in first.....)

by Bluebeard 2008-02-07 10:14AM | 0 recs
Re: Why Super Tuesday was better for Hillary

MSNBC sickens me to the point where I can no longer watch it.  Much crowing from Olbermann about Obama's big win in the South, putting in this area in play for the Dems in the General if Obama nominee.

Hmmmm....

Southern states voting 02/05

Arkansas- CLINTON
Oklahoma- CLINTON
Tennesse- CLINTON

Alabama- OBAMA
Georgia- OBAMA

So despite what MSNBC says, Clinton WON the Southern states.  Moreover, of the 5 above, which ones are ACTUALLY WINNABLE by a DEM?  Only 2.  Ark and Tenn.  Both won by CLINTON....Handily.
Ark the strongest get for Dems.  Ala and Geo not even remotely close.  MSNBC disgusts me.

by bdog 2008-02-05 09:58PM | 0 recs
Re: Why Super Tuesday was better for Hillary

He was probably reading from Dean talking points.

by sonofdonkeykong 2008-02-05 10:45PM | 0 recs
Re: Why Super Tuesday was better for Hillary

Hillary won more Alabama delegates (CNN).

I don't know if this is confirmed though

by Wiseprince 2008-02-06 02:46AM | 0 recs
Re: Why Super Tuesday was better for Hillary

It's so true she has had such an uphill battle- the media have been so unfair to her and she still won some significant battles tonight- especially in California.  Obama had a great night, though, that can't be denied but I don't think he has unseated her quite yet- I still think she has the advantage, although it's slim.

I think it will end up a Clinton/Obama ticket, that neither might have enought to win and that will be the ticket that will be arranged.  It is certainly something all of us could get behind- we need the power of both of them to defeat McCain- working together.  We'll have to swamp him with getting the voters out to win the states we need- that's what I think, anyway.  I'm not sure either one alone can pull it off.

by reasonwarrior 2008-02-05 10:12PM | 0 recs
Re: Why Super Tuesday was better for Hillary

she is looking ahead to some tough times.( 2 weeks to be precise )

the calendar is horrible.

by lori 2008-02-05 10:16PM | 0 recs
Re: Why Super Tuesday was better for Hillary

Good night for Hillary, in my opinion, but the delegate splits are problematic.  Washington is a very important state and she has not done so well in caucuses.  Does anyone know how her organization is doing in WA?  Will Murray and Cantwell be able to offer much help?  And where is Gregoire?

by Thaddeus 2008-02-05 10:30PM | 0 recs
Re: Why Super Tuesday was better for Hillary

Okay, let's look right to convention....

I think she will win the 5 largest states left:
PA, NC, OH, TX, IN

She will should be competitive in:
VA, NE, WI, RI, WV, KY

My honest opinion of where we are headed:

Obama gets talked into being her VP.

by bdog 2008-02-05 10:33PM | 0 recs
Re: Why Super Tuesday was better for Hillary

That's the exact situation i see happening. Well, Obama or Strickland being her VP. Whoever is more "valuable". Clinton only needs one state that Al Gore didn't win to be president. Ohio would be a biggie.

by werd2406 2008-02-05 10:39PM | 0 recs
Re: Why Super Tuesday was better for Hillary

The economy in Ohio is terrible.

I live in california and bought 3 buildings each over 5000 sq feet for less than what some of my friends pay for a CAR for all 3 combined.

I am talking $2.5-$6 a sq foot.

by sonofdonkeykong 2008-02-05 10:49PM | 0 recs
Re: Why Super Tuesday was better for Hillary

Wow just realized that is like the price of carpet or hardwood floors per square foot.

by sonofdonkeykong 2008-02-05 10:50PM | 0 recs
Re: Why Super Tuesday was better for Hillary

Same momentum he had coming off of SC, Kennedy, Oprah, Shriver, and 100% media that was going to swing Cali, NJ, and Mass?

by bdog 2008-02-05 11:09PM | 0 recs
Ohio

She has Gov.Strickland's support, but I think Obama has some mayoral support (Columbus, Youngstown, and both Cincy/Cleveland mayors are AA and as yet unaligned).

That being said I think HRC's main problem is that Obama seems to narrow the gap when he has time to spend in a state. From the looks of it he has the Potomac primaries in the bag, and he will be able to concentrate on PA, TX, OH. If he builds up a lead in pledged delegates from now until March, I think it may be difficult for Hillary to blow him out and catch him. SHould be very interesting if this starts coming down to superdelegates/MI/FL.

by highgrade 2008-02-06 03:44AM | 0 recs
Re: Why Super Tuesday was better for Hillary

Obama is clearly the democratic party machine candidate.

Funny how Hillary may be the anti-establishment candidate and win with the change theme...

by sonofdonkeykong 2008-02-05 10:45PM | 0 recs
Re: Why Super Tuesday was better for Hillary

>Obama is clearly the democratic party machine >candidate.
>Funny how Hillary may be the anti-establishment >candidate and win with the change theme...

Haha! What an insane comment. I love the internet.

by thirdeye99 2008-02-05 10:59PM | 0 recs
Re: Why Super Tuesday was better for Hillary

Other than the caucus states, which are almost all small states and states with large AA populations, where did Obama clean clock? CT & MO were basically ties. IL is his home state. I see Super Tues. slight advantage Hillary. What do you think?

by Safe at Home 2008-02-05 11:22PM | 0 recs
Re: Why Super Tuesday was better for Hillary

Agreed.  He didn't get MA, NJ, or CA style victories.

by bdog 2008-02-05 11:38PM | 0 recs
Re: Why Super Tuesday was better for Hillary

This is what I see too. Basically latte liberals and blacks are what Obama can win. While that's enough to keep the Dem nomination close, it's not enough to win a general election.

by Ga6thDem 2008-02-06 01:36AM | 0 recs
Re: Why Super Tuesday was better for Hillary

I disagree.

Hillary is winning blue state Democrats, just like Kerry and Gore.

Obama is turning out the AA vote and getting votes in states where Democrats usually don't do well.

As a red state Democrat, I dread Hillary being at the top of the ticket.  She may win the Presidency, and I think she's make a good President, but she is so polarizing that she'll kill us down the ballot.

by wayward 2008-02-06 04:01AM | 0 recs
Re: Why Super Tuesday was better for Hillary

Truly, this kind of spin from Obama supporters is crazy. Do you truly believe that he can win UT in Nov? Nothing wrong with getting out the AA vote but it doesn't translate into being able to win in Nov.

As a red state Democrat, I dread having Obama at the top of the ticket. Last poll here in GA had him losing the state by 30 pts. Hillary loses too but by about 10-15 pts.

Obama is extremely polarizing. He's made this whole race about black vs. white. And that's what the general election campaign will be about too. It'll be black vs. white with him on top of the ticket and he'll lose in a landslide.

by Ga6thDem 2008-02-06 04:06AM | 0 recs
Re: Why Super Tuesday was better for Hillary

I tend to agree. His major victories of the night were CT, MO, IL,New Mexico (if he gets it). The Caucuse wins didn't seem to be major. On the other side Hillary had big wins in NY,NJ,MA,CA which for my money are more important states on the democratic side.

Both can claim some sort of victories but because of the states won I would have to give the edge to Hillary

by Wiseprince 2008-02-06 02:38AM | 0 recs
Wasn't Hillary suppose to win on Super Tuesday?

I remember Mydd touting how many states HRC was going to win and how many delegates she was going to win and that didn't happen.

by puma 2008-02-06 01:36AM | 0 recs
these delegates are bogus

the process was set up because of jesse jackson complaining.

This process makes no sense.  This is the first time it has actually been contested with these new rules.

A person who wins California, new jersey, and new york should get 10x what :
kansas,utah, north dakota, minnesota, alaksa,  in delegates do.

First of all: california is a base dem state.  Why would we let democrats who don't represent the winning coalition have an equal say in the nomination?

It's like the republicans letting california and new york republicans pick their nominee, makes no sense.

Again, we're going back to the immaturity of some ethnic voters (i won't say which-but you know, and i'm one of them) that the "process" isn't fair.

Imagine Hillary wins CALIFORNIA BY 10 POINTS and that doesn't give her a boat load of delegates.

NO fair person would set that up.

by yellowdem1129 2008-02-06 03:57AM | 0 recs
I am probably wrong

But I think the national media is going to finally have to refocus its coverage of the race and start treating Obama like a candidate instead of a hero / celeb.

I also think that future endorsement will not set the media off on 3 days of non stop coverage.  

Lastly, I think some of Obama's major surrogates have been blunted.  If he wants to trot Kerry, or Kennedy out to the press, they will have to answer to why they couldn't carry Obama in their home state.   Even McCaskill has to be a bit bruised, although a delegate tie, and a 1% "win", is better than a loss.

by dpANDREWS 2008-02-06 03:57AM | 0 recs
Re: I am probably wrong

David Axelrod & Co. have done a masterful job in how they expose him. The press gets very limited access to him while traveling on the plane. I get the impression to he is more of an entertainer an a politician. No town halls, uneasy in debates and appears to have limited knowledge of the issues.

Unfortunately Presidental elections have become nothing more than beauty contests.

I pray Bill Clinton and Hillary for that matter know what their doing. Every time when the Clintons looked like they were going down they always came back.

by Safe at Home 2008-02-06 05:17AM | 0 recs
Re: Why Super Tuesday was better for Hillary

I live in Ohio, and know my state very well.  Governor Strickland is hugely popular, and a strong Clinton supporter.  

The most reliable (NOT JOHN ZOGBY! NEVER JOHN ZOGBY AGAIN!) pollster in the state--Columbus Post Dispatch has her with a two to one lead.  

And Pennsylvania invariably goes for Dems as does neighboring New York.

And she will prove smashing among Latinos in Texas.

The Obama folk need to ask--not whether they can go on winning, which they certainly can, but at what cost?

Hillary and Bill are absolutely mandatory to winning Democratic elections, and Obama has proven himself a phenomenon.

But it is she with the long experience--the only real marriage would be with him as the Vice-president.

He is close enough to the brass ring, a VP spot would insure a Democratic victory, give him the experience he lacks, and give her the "movement" he creates.

For once, Obama should surrender his colossal ego in favor of unity.

And that time has come.

by lambros 2008-02-06 05:16AM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads