Ickes: McCain will "trounce" Obama

While Clinton herself has previously stated that either Democratic candidate would win in November, but she was a safer bet, apparently a strategic decision has been made to abandon whatever class and grace was left in the campaign and begin to explicitly undermine Obama against McCain.  Harold Ickes told Newsweek that McCain would "trounce" Obama. Key quote and a few thoughts in the extended entry.

Ickes:

[I]n an interview with NEWSWEEK, Ickes strongly suggested that Obama can't win come November. "We have to remember McCain is not a standard, off-the-shelf Republican," Ickes said, echoing the argument he says he's making to superdelegates, and pointing up Clinton's inarguable strength with Roman Catholics, Hispanics and elderly voters in key November battleground states such as Ohio, Florida and Pennsylvania. "He will have a lot of appeal for Hispanics. He'll trounce [Obama]."

For a long-time high-profile Democrat to predict Republican victory in such explicit terms is unprecedented.  Any hope - briefly sparked by the gracious tone of Clinton's speech on Tuesday - that the final days of Clinton's campaign would be high-minded and unifying was apparently ill-founded.  Note also Ickes's attempt to further divide the electorate along racial lines, with religion and age thrown in just in case there was any doubt.  Mark Pennism at its most blatant.

Now that camp Clinton has doubled down on its strategy to re-create the red-blue divide within the Democratic party, the pertinent question now becomes whether Clinton's death spiral will succeed in dragging Obama down with her.

Tags: Clintonistas, obama, rift (all tags)

Comments

93 Comments

Re: Ickes: McCain will "trounce" Obama

This won't matter. The few Clinton die-hards will just argue that Ickes is "speaking the truth" and play offended. Everyone else will see it for what it is - desperation, shilling to save one's career, and throwing the principles of Democratic unity over the side.

by upstate girl 2008-05-10 11:33AM | 0 recs
Read your own remarks about Clinton

We have been hearing these remarks from Obama supporters and surrogates for months.  How are Ickes  remarks anymore biased or divisive?

For people who have such heightened respect for your own intelligence, the powers of intellectual objectivity and introspection for most of you are quite limited.

by lombard 2008-05-10 12:02PM | 0 recs
Re: Read your own remarks about Clinton

If we've been hearing this kind of thing from the Obama campaign for months, let's see some links.

by upstate girl 2008-05-10 12:03PM | 0 recs
Your remarks, dolt!

by lombard 2008-05-10 12:06PM | 0 recs
Re: Your remarks, dolt!

You're comparing comments on the internet with a campaign spokesperson, for one. That's a little ridiculous. My assumption was that you'd be a little more rational about your comparisons and the weight they carry as reflecting the actual campaign. I guess I was mistaken.

by upstate girl 2008-05-10 12:09PM | 0 recs
Remarks aren't limited to internet posters

Obama friendly media talking heads and political supporters and surrogates have been quite generous about expressing them.

Stop the nonsense about Clinton destroying Democratic party unity.  These divisions existed long before this campaign (and, undoubtedly, well before you were born).  Do you think the only thing preventing Clinton's coalition from kneeling before Obama and kissing his ring is that Clinton continues to run in this primary?  She's a good candidate but she's not THAT GOOD!

by lombard 2008-05-10 12:18PM | 0 recs
Re: Remarks aren't limited to internet posters

You're really good at putting words in my mouth. Let's try again.

"Obama friendly media talking heads" are not the Obama campaign spokesmen. Neither are "political supporters and surrogates". And, finally, neither are my posts or anyone else's on the internet.

Everything else you stated is simply you projecting your own anger at Obama onto anyone else. Its obvious you're more than a little carried away, what with this "kiss the ring" talk.

by upstate girl 2008-05-10 12:21PM | 0 recs
name one

I know, I know.

you're hurtin from the crushing defeat on Tuesday.

you're hurtin to learn Hill's campaign is bankrupt.

you're hurtin and bitter, desperately clinging to your Hillary.

So you lie to defect the ever increasing depravity of Hillary and her surrogates.

You're a sad, sad, littler person.

I imagine you 5'0" tall

by Al Rodgers 2008-05-10 12:38PM | 0 recs
And I imagine you with a pin head and clown face

by lombard 2008-05-10 12:52PM | 0 recs
I knew it

you couldn't name one.

typical

by Al Rodgers 2008-05-10 12:58PM | 0 recs
Re: Ickes: McCain will "trounce" Obama

Burn the village to save it.

by mefck 2008-05-10 11:33AM | 0 recs
Re: Ickes: McCain will "trounce" Obama

Ickes is the scumbag who voted to strip Florida and Michigan of their delegates.

by Mostly 2008-05-10 03:23PM | 0 recs
Re: Ickes: McCain will "trounce" Obama

They don't have a lead in pledged or superdelegates and they can't even with FL and MI, so this is all they're left with.

by politicsmatters 2008-05-10 11:34AM | 0 recs
tar and feathers for him

by citizendave 2008-05-10 11:36AM | 0 recs
Re: Ickes: McCain will "trounce" Obama

Did someone attack poor Obama again? Shameful!

Feel better now? :D

by soyousay 2008-05-10 11:37AM | 0 recs
Re: Ickes: McCain will "trounce" Obama

If Ickes can't stand the heat, maybe he should stay out of the kitchen.

by politicsmatters 2008-05-10 11:40AM | 0 recs
Re: Ickes: McCain will "trounce" Obama

I think you got that backwards. That saying goes for the person who is being attacked.

by soyousay 2008-05-10 12:03PM | 0 recs
Re: Ickes: McCain will "trounce" Obama

Ickes is being attacked by the cold hard glare of reality, and is lashing out.

Truly, HE is the one who can't stand the heat of this race.

by freedom78 2008-05-10 12:48PM | 0 recs
Re: Ickes: McCain will "trounce" Obama

I see you're unhappy with my comment. Ok, I take it back...Not poor Obama.

by soyousay 2008-05-10 12:12PM | 0 recs
Re: Ickes: McCain will "trounce" Obama

I understand you're very distraught and upset about what happened to Hillary's candidacy and her reputation.

by Mostly 2008-05-10 03:25PM | 0 recs
Re: Ickes: McCain will "trounce" Obama

What an ass.

by Lawyerish 2008-05-10 11:41AM | 0 recs
Re: Ickes: McCain will "trounce" Obama

Lanny and Ickes and the bunch are really feeling it...they know that their careers are over.  The old guard is being put to pasture - to mix my metaphor.

by cardboard 1 2008-05-10 11:44AM | 0 recs
Re: Ickes: McCain will "trounce" Obama

Not a moment too soon.  Lanny Davis, Mark Penn, and Harold Ickes are the top-down plutocratic rot of the democratic party.  They need irrelevancy YESTERDAY.

by Mostly 2008-05-10 03:26PM | 0 recs
Re: Ickes: McCain will "trounce" Obama

Yep, bring in the new.. more Donna Brazile, she was so good the first time around.

by CVDem 2008-05-10 05:36PM | 0 recs
the eye of the beholder

you see "undermining, damaging Obama". I see this as a political strategist talking about what the numbers are telling him.

Both candidates are making their cases to the supers right now, even Obama I am sure.  Maybe Obama is presenting numbers too, but not being so vocal about it?

Your guy can come up with figures that dispute this, after all, you said he's won.  Should be easy. Seriously. Think strategy.

Clinton believes this thing will be over by June 15...her strategists have said so. That resolves MI & FL, makes their case before the supers, finishes the primary season. Then its up to the supers.  Give her, for heavens sake, a little credit for the integrity she has that  you don't seem to see.

That said, you DO need to start working on a general election strategy and improving your own numbers where needed...if  you want to win.  You gain nothing by sitting here trashing diarists who are trying to tell you something.

by 4justice 2008-05-10 11:44AM | 0 recs
Re: the eye of the beholder

Why do you say 'you?'  Ostensibly, you are on the same team as US.  

The passions will fade, and sense will take over.

by Lawyerish 2008-05-10 11:50AM | 0 recs
Re: the eye of the beholder

yep, the sense that if Obama is the nominee, we will be wishing the day after the GE, we should have put up Hillary, because now we have a Prez McCain.

thank you for putting up an inexperienced greenhorn

by colebiancardi 2008-05-10 12:19PM | 0 recs
Re: the eye of the beholder

Ah, the blame game. Where personal responsibility for actually promoting a legitimate Democratic nominee falls to the wayside in favor of finger pointing and cries of "if you had done it MY way". Wash your hands of the whole thing and head to Free Republic if that's the way you truly feel.

by upstate girl 2008-05-10 12:23PM | 0 recs
Re: the eye of the beholder

Well, I hope you remember your little words here, because Obama supporters are already blaming Hillary if and when he loses the GE.

so much for personal responsibility.

and I did my part for my personal responsibility.  I supported and voted for a legitimate Democratic nominee who CAN actually win the GE.

I won't wave fingers at anyone.  But you can bet that there will be a lot of people who will and it will come from Obama's best buds right now - the MSM

by colebiancardi 2008-05-10 12:33PM | 0 recs
Re: the eye of the beholder

Actually, virtually every Obama supporter I've seen are pretty confident about his winning the GE. If you want to start "I told you so"s in anticipation of him losing, that's a little backwards.

by upstate girl 2008-05-10 12:42PM | 0 recs
Re: the eye of the beholder

In a month no one will remember the primaries. For 99% of the country who are more worried about their own futures then they are about Clinton's or Obama's careers the only concern will be whether it's Obama or McCain who can fix the mess the Republicans have made.

The GE has really already started with all eyes focused on Obama v McCain. If Obama loses he will have no one but himself to blame. It was a given that he would have to overcome a wall of slime and Rovian attacks, no matter whether they are coming from the media, CLinton or the Republicans. Either he is up to it or he is not. So far he has proven more then capable, come November he will crush McCain.

by hankg 2008-05-10 12:48PM | 0 recs
Re: the eye of the beholder

I have no objection with Ickes or Clinton or anyone making arguments to the supers that Obama can't beat McCain.  Make a thousand power point presentations on it.  I think that they are BS arguments, but fully admit that my opinion on the race plus the price of coffee in your are, etc..

The issue is him telling newsweek that, there's a big difference.

by labor nrrd 2008-05-10 02:39PM | 0 recs
Re: Ickes: McCain will "trounce" Obama

Duh!!.....he is a spinmaster. Of course he would say that.

by MissVA 2008-05-10 11:46AM | 0 recs
Re: Ickes: McCain will "trounce" Obama

Obama will get trounced in November. Ickes is right.

Obama is a whore for Wall Street, City of London, and the Chicago Board of Trade. What kind of changes will he bring? When you get through his fluffy speaches, there is nothing there.

I will not vote for McCain, but there are many out there who do not think that he can be any worse than Bush. How could he?

Obama is a political lightweight and it is a false assumption to make that we Hillary supporters will vote for him. Obama's supporters are "A-Holes" and their behavior makes me even less likely to vote for their Elmer Gantry like candidate.

by dantch 2008-05-10 11:51AM | 0 recs
Re: Ickes: McCain will "trounce" Obama

I'm troll rating your comment for your wording to describe Obama and his supporters

by cardboard 1 2008-05-10 11:52AM | 0 recs
Re: Ickes: McCain will "trounce" Obama

This comment (in addition to above) pushes it to 0 for me:

"Obama is a whore for Wall Street, City of London, and the Chicago Board of Trade"

by mefck 2008-05-10 12:21PM | 0 recs
Re: Ickes: McCain will "trounce" Obama

Election predictions from someone who thought Clinton was inevitable?  Its like hearing from Bill Kristol on the future of Iraq.

by bosdcla14 2008-05-10 11:51AM | 0 recs
I figured out the problem with HRC's campaign

They don't know how to read polls.

#
Pres '08
May 10 LAT/Bloomberg
Obama (D) 46%, McCain (R) 40%
#
Pres '08
May 10 Gallup
Obama (D) 46%, McCain (R) 45%
#
Pres '08
May 10 Rasmussen
Obama (D) 46%, McCain (R) 45%
#
Pres '08
May 9 Hotline/Diageo
Obama (D) 47%, McCain (R) 43%

http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsm emo.com/polltracker/

After the worst month possible for his campaign Obama is ahead in every single recent poll. They just can't stand the fact the he beat her, and will win against McCain.

by Tatan 2008-05-10 11:55AM | 0 recs
Re: I figured out the problem with HRC's campaign

those polls are all margin of error

by DiamondJay 2008-05-10 01:12PM | 0 recs
Re: I figured out the problem with HRC's campaign

Yes... but they all show Barack winning. Clearly there is a pattern. Is Obama 1 point ahead or 5+... right now I'm not sure. His numbers are anemic due to the bitterness of the primary and will rise substantial once the primaries are over and it's clear he won.

by Tatan 2008-05-10 01:41PM | 0 recs
engels: McCain will "trounce" Obama

in landslide

by engels 2008-05-10 11:55AM | 0 recs
Re: engels: McCain will "trounce" Obama

Inciteful analysis, as usual.  I particularly like the empirical data you used to back up your position.  Wait...

by HSTruman 2008-05-10 11:57AM | 0 recs
Re: engels: McCain will "trounce" Obama

The difference is if you tried to get a quote in Newsweek and claimed to be on staff for the Clintons, you would be "escorted" out of the building.

by Mostly 2008-05-10 03:36PM | 0 recs
Let me see if

I have this straight.  The guy who voted to strip FL & MI of its delegates and now says those delegates must be seated is predicting a "trouncing" of the democratic nominee by George Bush's clone.  Right.  

Please, the man has no credibility whatsoever.  

by UrbanRedneck 2008-05-10 11:58AM | 0 recs
Re: Ickes: McCain will "trounce" Obama

I don't think Ickes is hurting Obama.  Its just a stupid statement.  No democrat is going to lose in a McGovernesque landslide this year.  Even Karl Rove acknowledged this in his recent WSJ editorial.

by Fuzzy Dunlop 2008-05-10 11:59AM | 0 recs
Re: Ickes: McCain will "trounce" Obama

Does anyone argue that McCain won't trounce Obama in Florida? From what I've heard the Obama campaign is writing off Florida, bored now makes that case here all the time. Ohio also looks very difficult for Obama against McCain.

Some might argue that Pennsylvania does not belong in that category, but it is debatable.

I don't see a single argument here against what Ickes is quoted saying. I wonder if Obama supporters will every be able to engage in discussion without ad-hominem.

by souvarine 2008-05-10 12:12PM | 0 recs
Re: Ickes: McCain will "trounce" Obama

He's arguing for his candidate, not the party nominee. And he still doesn't make any sense, nor does he put any of these factors into the picture of the general election. Its a dishonest analysis and its one designed to try and boost a campaign that doesn't have a chance of winning the nomination - so  he attacks the presumptive nominee. Its sad, but its nothing different than what the campaign has been doing for weeks now - its just a little more pathetic now that the clock has finally run out.

by upstate girl 2008-05-10 12:18PM | 0 recs
Re: Ickes: McCain will "trounce" Obama

Obama is NOT the party nominee yet. He does not have the delegates. The whole reason Ickes is right is that the Latinos and whites are going to be even less liberal in a general election. If he can't pick them up in a Democratic primary, or at least show well with them, why is he going to do better in a general? Why doesn't this apply to Hillary with blacks? Because in as general election, they'll always vote the same 90%ish Democrat anyway. Not true for hispanics and whites. Also, Obama's race does not help him with Latinos, and if he can't do better in a liberal Dem primary, he'll get wrecked in a general. Ickes is just right.

by DiamondJay 2008-05-10 01:18PM | 0 recs
Re: Ickes: McCain will "trounce" Obama

"If he can't pick them up in a Democratic primary, or at least show well with them, why is he going to do better in a general?"

Because the primary is splitting Democrats between two Democratic choices, not pitting a Democrat against a Republican. That's rather obvious.

"Why doesn't this apply to Hillary with blacks? Because in as general election, they'll always vote the same 90%ish Democrat anyway. Not true for hispanics and whites."

Because whites and hispanics don't traditionally trend along voting one party over another. Ickes is making a last-grasp attempt to try and poison the well since his candidate is out of time to regain the lead, and he's doing it in an intellectually dishonest fashion.

by upstate girl 2008-05-10 01:25PM | 0 recs
Re: Ickes: McCain will "trounce" Obama

Ohio looks difficult for both Clinton and Obama at the moment.  Given that the election is a good number of months off, and McCain has been given a good free ride (until just recently when Obama turned his guns on him), I wouldn't be all that confident about Ohio if I were McCain.

The latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey in Ohio shows John McCain leading Barack Obama 47% to 40%. He also leads Hillary Clinton 47% to 42%. Last month, McCain led both Democrats by six percentage points.
 

by StrangeAnomaly 2008-05-10 01:34PM | 0 recs
Re: Ickes: McCain will "trounce" Obama

Obama will probably largely write off Florida, but Ohio will continue to be the most important battleground state in the country.  He is running just behind McCain there and can win it.

Obama's map is very simple.  Walk through one of two doors:

a. Kerry states + Ohio

b. Kerry states + some combination of NV, CO, NM, IO, MO that adds up to more than 18 EV.

He could also win elsewhere, like VA, but if he wins there it probably means he's winning big and doesn't actually need the state to get over 270.

by Fuzzy Dunlop 2008-05-10 04:02PM | 0 recs
Quoting someone's statement is ad hominem?

I don't think that phrase means what you think it means.  This post is about the line between hard but fair intra-party campaigning and campaigning with no regard for the general election for the party.

As for arguments against what Ickes is saying, just google "primary results predict general election outcomes" and you'll see why the SDs aren't buying what Ickes is shoveling.

by JJE 2008-05-10 05:27PM | 0 recs
Re: Quoting someone's statement is ad hominem?

"apparently a strategic decision has been made to abandon whatever class and grace was left in the campaign"

Along with the bulk of your post, is ad-hominem. But I was actually referring to the comments, which are mostly attacks on Ickes himself rather than a discussion of what he said. Your response and the responses of your compatriots are similar to many Obama supporters responses Jerome's posts, substance free name calling.

Pointing out your opponents electoral weaknesses is well within the bounds of fair intra-party campaigning. Using false charges of racism and voter suppression to juice your numbers is not.

by souvarine 2008-05-10 06:37PM | 0 recs
Where is the name-calling

in this post?  Class and grace was about Clinton's campaigning.  Not Clinton herself.  The finest people can nevertheless engage in campaign tactics that cross the line.  Please familiarize yourself with what ad hominem really means before you start throwing it around.

Pointing out your opponents electoral weaknesses is well within the bounds of fair intra-party campaigning.

I never said otherwise.  In fact I explicitly argued that this rose to a level above just "pointing out [Obama's] electoral weaknesses."  Did you even read my comment?  

Either make a minimal effort to understand and engage with what I am actually arguing, rather than straw men, or don't bother to respond.  

by JJE 2008-05-11 10:20AM | 0 recs
Re: Ickes: McCain will "trounce" Obama

The Clinton campaign has the shrill desperation of a used car salesman still trying to make a deal as the customer is driving off the lot in disgust.

by Kobi 2008-05-10 12:19PM | 0 recs
Re: Ickes: McCain will "trounce" Obama

Nothing like political prognostications from Harold "This primary campaign will all be over by Super Tuesday!" Ickes ...

by Collideascope 2008-05-10 12:40PM | 0 recs
I LOVE THE SMELL OF DESPERATION

I LOVE THE SMELL OF DESPERATION IN THE MORNING!!

That Smell!

That whinny Hillary, "I'm a victim" Smell!

Smells like.... Victory!!!

by Al Rodgers 2008-05-10 12:41PM | 0 recs
Re: Ickes: McCain will "trounce" Obama

Just like how Clinton trounced Obama? Oh wait that didn't quite happen.

Nothing to see here folks.

by sweet potato pie 2008-05-10 12:47PM | 0 recs
Re: Ickes: McCain will "trounce" Obama

Didn't Ickes think Clinton would "trounce" Obama??

by hootie4170 2008-05-10 12:56PM | 0 recs
In the best interest of Hillary supporters

I think it is in the best interest of the middle of the party that Obama lose and lose big in November. If he wins the Daily Kos' of the world are going to keeping pushing the party farther and farther to the left (even Obama will seem too conservative to them in a year or two). If Barack loses then the same groups will be marginalized and you won't have once loyal democrats like Lieberman and Hillary thrown under the bus with such disregard and disdain. The election is, in part, for the future of the party.

by Wiseprince 2008-05-10 12:57PM | 0 recs
Re: In the best interest of Hillary supporters

Astounding lack of logic. It takes a special mind to say that losing an election is in the losing party's best interests.

by upstate girl 2008-05-10 01:00PM | 0 recs
Re: In the best interest of Hillary supporters

There are no doubts many Conservatives who feel the same way with regard to McCain. During this primary Hillary has been forced to far to the left that she has almost fallen off the ship (Compare her current positions with what her positions were when she was thinking about the General election). If Obama loses and loses big the nominee will not have to kiss the ring of the far left of the party to be nominated. I am not against that at all.

by Wiseprince 2008-05-10 01:03PM | 0 recs
Re: In the best interest of Hillary supporters

Considering the fact that Obama and Clinton hold extremely similar policy views, I'm not sure why you're here on a Democratic blog. If you're a Clinton supporter, then there's virtually nothing in Obama's platform that would be a concession to the "far left" that she already hasn't made. If you think both platforms are too far from the "center", then your only other option is the Republican party and their current platform.

by upstate girl 2008-05-10 01:09PM | 0 recs
Re: In the best interest of Hillary supporters

Again, see why Clinton hold the positions see now holds. It certainly wasn't a part of her so called "triangulation" strategy. She was forced to take many of the positions she is holding now because she was in danger of being pushed out of the process very early. As a result neither of them are positioned terribly well for the general election (not to suggest that a lose is inevitable). Between John Kerry, Obama and Hillary the party (in particular the activist) has said with a strong voice over the past few years that they have very little time for more moderates like even Joe Biden. Run to the left or you will not get nominated has been the message over the past two cycles. If the democrats lose and lose big this cycle I will be quite hopeful that more moderates can have a voice within the party again. Notwithstanding what the frame of this election will be (McCain is a third term of Bush) I really think that this would be the best year to lose (since I don't really buy that argument). Also, John McCain is more than likely, in my opinion, to be a one term President

by Wiseprince 2008-05-10 01:18PM | 0 recs
Re: In the best interest of Hillary supporters

There is NO "good year to lose"... much less THIS YEAR with so much at stake...

You can send your phony-baloney messages with your vote... that's just fine... but it is the liberal wing of this party that has had the temerity to stand up to George W and his cadre of idiots.  I hope for more of them, not less.

by JenKinFLA 2008-05-10 02:33PM | 0 recs
Re: In the best interest of Hillary supporters

Incidentally, by telling me I shouldn't be on a democratic blog because I don't support the idea of moving far to the left helps to illustrate my point

by Wiseprince 2008-05-10 01:20PM | 0 recs
Re: In the best interest of Hillary supporters

No one has moved "far" to the left.  Both candidates are moderates.  Neither candidate has proposed anything that falls anywhere outside of the mainstream.  Oh and one other thing, if you want to take a good look at "far" out policies, take a good look at the Bush administration's "unitary" executive notion and McCain's more recent embrace of this nonsense.  

by StrangeAnomaly 2008-05-10 01:39PM | 0 recs
Re: In the best interest of Hillary supporters

Durf?

Durf!

DUUUUUUUHHHHHHHHRRF!!!!!!!!!!!!!

by emptythreatsfarm 2008-05-10 02:19PM | 0 recs
Re: In the best interest of Hillary supporters

How in the Hell did you make the death-defying leap that lead you to not only call Lieberman a "loyal Democrat" but to smear Hillary Clinton by putting her in the same sentence with him..?  In case you have not noticed, Lieberman is prancing around the country shilling for McCain and vouching for his "bearings"...

That guy lost his "loyal Democrat" card well before Nd Lamont made it official.

by JenKinFLA 2008-05-10 02:30PM | 0 recs
Re: In the best interest of Hillary supporters

Joe Lieberman was kicked out by the left because he wasn't against the war. Joe Lieberman is left on just about everything else but not left enough for this new democratic party. If you haven't noticed I am not the one who has been lumping Hillary with Joe. The Daily Kos' of the world have been calling Hillary and Bill Clinton GOP for sometime now. This, in my opinion, is just the beginning; When you can suggest that only Democratic President in 20+ years is truly a member of the opposition then there is a problem in the party. This problem will only be dealt with if the choice of the "Daily Kos left" is beaten and beaten badly

by Wiseprince 2008-05-10 03:10PM | 0 recs
Re: In the best interest of Hillary supporters

So... let me get this straight... you are not only advocating a Republican win in 2008 but you are rooting for one as well...?

Never thought I would hear that here and this place is becoming known for outlandish remarks...

Just so you can "send a message" to the radical Left.. without whom the Democrats wouldn't often have a moral leg to stand on?

by JenKinFLA 2008-05-10 05:28PM | 0 recs
Obama will go down

He doesn't need any help from Clinton on that.

by izarradar 2008-05-10 12:58PM | 0 recs
She crying over Tuesay

ahahhahahahhahahahhahhahaahh

Ooooh, the look on you guys face (Lanny, Begala) was PRICELESS!!

"full speed, ahead to Fantasy Island!"

ahahhahahahhahahahhahhahaahh

by Al Rodgers 2008-05-10 01:05PM | 0 recs
Agree...

He doesn't even know how many states there are.

by soyousay 2008-05-10 01:07PM | 0 recs
Re: Agree...

I see...you seriously think Obama doesn't know how many states there are in the United States?  I would suggest that that belief would say far more about you than this video of Obama does.

by StrangeAnomaly 2008-05-10 01:40PM | 0 recs
Re: Ickes: McCain will "trounce" Obama

Ickes also thought it would be a swell idea to strip Michigan and Florida of their delegates (at least, he did before he was on the Clinton payroll, then he was against it).  The guy's no master strategist.  

by rfahey22 2008-05-10 01:47PM | 0 recs
Primary aside, Obama was a...

Obama has an electoral map that's less than optimal.  It's based on writing off Florida and the "Rust Belt," defending blue states, and trying to piece together a tenuous chain of Western state victories against a candidate who has the strongest GOP appeal to Hispanics in history.

The prime battlegrounds will be:

Colorado, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Nevada, Maine.

The secondary battles will be:

Virginia (lean GOP), Iowa (lean Dem), Michigan (lean Dem).

The problem is that Obama has to win all seven of the prime battlegrounds.  If he loses one, we lose.  His only chance to make up for it would be in Virginia, which isn't a likely pick up for him, especially since the electorate is now polarized on racial lines.  

by BPK80 2008-05-10 01:59PM | 0 recs
Too bad Hillary is bankrupt

too, too bad Mark Penn blew Hillary's $200 war chest, and forced her into a Red Sea of debt.  

she could have been a decent candidate.  but not no.  Not when her creditors are about to force foreclosure .

by Al Rodgers 2008-05-10 02:28PM | 0 recs
Re: Primary aside, Obama was a...

Virginia is only one of two states in the history of the U.S. to elect an African American Governor, so I don't see your logic that Virginia is lost because " the electorate is polarized on racial lines..."

by JenKinFLA 2008-05-10 02:35PM | 0 recs
BRAVO!!!

STANDING OVATION!!

Not only that: Obama won the coveted white vote, 52-47, in the VA primary.

by Al Rodgers 2008-05-10 02:59PM | 0 recs
Re: BRAVO!!!

Virginia was ages ago.

Virginia of May 2008 would look something more like North Carolina.  

Check out the head-to-head McCain/Obama matchup in Virginia.  

by BPK80 2008-05-10 05:00PM | 0 recs
Re: BRAVO!!!

Oh sure... let's base all of our chances on polling data done in April and May... after McCain has coasted for a couple of months...

November is a long time away.

And, there is nothing in Virginia's demographic that would indicate to me that it has changed substantially since Wilder.

by JenKinFLA 2008-05-10 05:24PM | 0 recs
Re: Primary aside, Obama was a...

Simple demography.  The Democrat always wins 90% of the GE vote.  The AA population in Virginia is approx 25%, perhaps a little bit less.  

The Virginia primary represented Obama's peak performance at his zenith of appeal.  It was post-racial Obama.  After March, when the electorate polarized among racial lines, Obama lost support in every category except AA's, where he gained a few points.

The comparison to North Carolina is most apt for where we are now (May 2008).  

Even with over 90% of the AA vote, John Kerry lost Virginia by 9% in 2004, a big margin for a state with so many people in it.  With the same percentage of the AA vote, or maybe a little bit higher, Barack Obama, who runs behind John Kerry in the "everybody else" vote, is not likely to outperform Kerry by much in the general election matchup.

Obama has been losing Virginia in head to heads in almost every poll released since March, sometimes by double digits.  He may try campaigning there at first but when internals show it's not paying dividends (cause closing the gap doesn't matter in a GE unless you win), they'll quietly pull the $ out of VA and move it elsewhere.  

by BPK80 2008-05-10 04:58PM | 0 recs
Re: Ickes: McCain will "trounce" Obama

What makes this a strategic decision?

by Scotch 2008-05-10 02:15PM | 0 recs
I can only assume

that a key advisor would make such a statement to a reporter on the record only if it was in keeping with campaign strategy.  I haven't heard anyone from the campaign walking it back (nor Clinton's statement about hard working whites) so I think it's a fair inference.

by JJE 2008-05-10 03:17PM | 0 recs
Re: Ickes: McCain will "trounce" Obama

I'm sorry to see so many people dismiss this out of hand. Hispanic voters have not always sided with Democrats in the past. It would be foolish to assume that they will support Obama.

by bowiegeek 2008-05-10 02:22PM | 0 recs
Re: Ickes: McCain will "trounce" Obama

Clinton or McCain... these are my choice.  

by sterkt 2008-05-10 02:26PM | 0 recs
Prove him wrong?

I'll never understand the outrage this primary season at people stating the FACTS about how the electorate is responding to the candidates.

Clearly you disagree with Ikes and believe that Obama has vast appeal and will win in November if he is the nominee. So... prove Ickes wrong. Shove it back in his face. Win a landslide in November. You believe it can be done, do it.

That is certainly what Hillary Clinton did. She proved them wrong, she shut her critics and pundits right up. Going into this race, no one thought she could get wide support among working-class white men in the Midwest... the talking heads said that Hillary hatred ran too deep... but hell yeah she won them over.

Blaming Hillary for Obama's loss in November is a coward's game. Do you hear Hillary Clinton supporters blaming Ken Starr? Nope.

Get to work for your candidate. Prove Ikes wrong if it offends you this much that he is crunching the poll numbers to benefit his preferred candidate. If you think this "attack" is out-of-line, I suggest you brace yourself if Obama is the nominee. This is National Politics, International Politics. In the grand scheme of political warfare, Ikes comments register at the pillowfight level.

by twinmom 2008-05-10 03:11PM | 0 recs
Dopey comment

The objection is to one high-profile Democrat explicitly predicting defeat, in a widely-read news outlet, if the other candidate is the nominee.  That's unprecedented as far as I am aware of.  There's a clear line between "I'm more electable" and "He will lose" that nobody who genuinely cares about the Democratic party should cross.

As for Hillary's ability to win over working-class white men, you assume that support among working-class white men who identify Democratic will carry over to the wider electorate.  A doubtful proposition at best.  And of course her Tom Joad act isn't going to win her the primary, so it's something of a pyrrhic victory.

We'll see if Obama can win in November.  That will hinge on whether the electorate still responds to Clinton/Rove divide-and-conquer tactics.

by JJE 2008-05-10 03:31PM | 0 recs
Did anyone say "He will lose"?

The full Ikes quote was referring to Obama being trounced specifically among Hispanic voters. Clearly, Clinton IS stronger among that voting block. Obama could well be trounced by McCain in terms of the Hispanic vote (which would be a solid Dem block with Clinton as the nominee). That's a fact, either live with it and find other ways to build Obama's winning coalition or work to change it. Pretending it isn't there and ignoring it is not a winning strategy.

Yes, the Newsweek article SPUN it that the Hillary campaign is implying that Obama is not electable, that makes for a good story. For you to stretch this to imply that this statement would be the reason Obama might lose in November is what is dopey (to borrow your insult).

Hillary herself has said VERY clearly and unequivocally many times when asked directly (the last time I recall was at the last debate) that Obama can absolutely win if he is the nominee and that she will work her butt off to make that happen. Bill Clinton has said exactly the same thing.

Hate and blame Hillary (or Bill) Clinton all you want. If Obama is the nominee, that excuse will be off-the-table. The Clintons will be working steadfastly for your candidate and the only liability to Obama's electability will be Obama himself.

Obama's victory in November will not hinge on anything except for Obama's ability to make his case to the American people that he should be President.

by twinmom 2008-05-10 03:54PM | 0 recs
Sorry, misplaced post

This belongs above in reply to "Dopey Comment"

by twinmom 2008-05-10 03:55PM | 0 recs
It could be read that way

But it could just as easily be read as a prediction that he'll lose, considering Ickes was also talking about Catholics and the elderly.

Anyway, I never said this particular statement would cause Obama's downfall.  You're misreading the post.  What I am asking is if this strategy of dividing the party along ethnic, religious, and age lines will be harmful in November.  This statement is just one example of a larger tack Clinton has taken.  I'm sure I don't need to list the other examples.

by JJE 2008-05-10 05:23PM | 0 recs
hahahahahaha

Well, if a Clinton surrogate says it, it must be true!

God, the desperation... it burns!!!

by Slim Tyranny 2008-05-10 04:17PM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads