Primaries

Remove all ads!

I was going for comic effect, not necessarily accurate analysis. It's certainly not impossible for Clinton at this point, but it is becoming more and more improbable with every contest that passes--and the difficulty increases dramatically if Michigan and Florida are not somehow in the equation.

While a lot of ink has been used to talk about Obama's fanatical support and the new voters he has brought into the process, similar things can be said of Clinton. She's brought in a lot of first time women voters and has her fanatical supporters as well, particularly in a lot of feminist groups. Take a look at the comments of Billie Jean King, Geraldine Ferraro, and Gloria Steinem about the race and see if you think they have the best interests of the party or their candidate at heart.

As for the talking heads, keep in mind that the latest projections had McCain losing to both Clinton and Obama (via different states) so it's not much of a slam dunk argument. They're probably more concerned with material for their shows than anything else, and Clinton seems to have a special place in the heart of their audiences.

 

While your statement is true CamDawg, I think you are understating the case. Even with Florida and Michigan the degree of difficulty is extremely high for Clinton. If Michigan and/or Florida do not revote, it becomes nearly mathematically impossible for Hillary to catch up.

@everyone else: Without FL and MI, Hillary would need to win all remaining primaries with an average margin of victory of 65-35 to tie Obama in pledged delegates. Not even the most fanatical of Hillary supporters view that standard as remotely attainable.

However, lets say FL and MI get do-overs and get their full amount of delegates. Even then, Hillary still needs to win all remaining contests with an average margin of 58-42. Not as bad, but that's still very optimistic. Especially when I am not as convinced as Hillary's campaign of how well they will do in Michigan. Detroit has a very large black population, and this is a state where Jesse Jackson managed 35% of the popular vote in the 1988 Democratic primary (when Dukakis was already widely accepted as the nominee). I'm not sold that Hillary can even win Michigan, much less win it by 16 points.

Hillary herself has proclaimed that this race is all about delegates, but if you haven't noticed she hasn't been talking about that much lately, and it's because she knows she can't win the delegate race. At this point, every time she earns less than 58% of the delegates, it's technically a loss. Every time she falls short of 58% she has to do that much better in the remaining contests.

The only thing that Hillary has a chance at winning is the popular vote. She's behind there too. (In fact, even if you count Michigan and Florida - and Obama wasn't even on the ballot in Michigan - he's ahead of Clinton in total votes.) At this point, it's difficult to project how realistic it is of Hillary catching up there, because it's difficult to forecast what kind of voter turnout we're going to see in the reamining states. We haven't had a race like this in years - in the voting lives of most people - so turnouts in previous year primaries are a poor indicator of what we can expect this time around. With delegates you can say what percentage of the vote Hillary needs to secure the nomination, because we know exactly how many delegates there are (well we have one number with FL and MI and a different number without them, but regardless it's a known quantity). But you can't give a percentage with the popular vote because it entirely depends on what number of people vote.

I'll end my rant with one other percentage for people to consider - and that percentage is 45%. It represents the percentage of remaining delegates and uncommitted superdelegates Obama needs from here on out to secure the nomination.

 

Sure. I think Clinton's holding on in the slim hope of a couple of scenarios, all of which involve superdelegate shenanigans. If she could get the edge in the popular vote--a daunting task, but slightly less daunting than overtaking the pledged delegate lead--she'll advance the argument that she is actually the choice of the people. You've seen some hints in this direction, especially with the 'caucuses are undemocratic' comments you see from her surrogates. The other one, which you've also seen argued by her campaign to some degree, is that the states she's won are 'more important' in the general election because they're battleground states, i.e. Ohio and Florida. (I know the Florida win wasn't legit, but she'll still take the state in a re-vote.)

The former is a far more compelling argument, but is only slightly more probable than overtaking Obama in pledged delegates. The latter has failed to gain any traction at all, but they're probably hoping it might when they win Pennsylvania--mainly because that's all they have left. A Clinton nomination via superdelegates would also break the Democratic party as we know it--they'd have a long, hard road restoring the trust of the African American community, and turned away a highly energized youth vote to boot.

I've seen cynics elsewhere advance a tin-foil hat theory: Clinton knows the primary is a done deal, but is now playing the long game. If she can damage Obama enough so that he loses to McCain, it opens a very good opportunity for her in 2012. As appalled as I've been by the conduct of her campaign, even I don't believe she's capable of this.

 

There's that, and the other thing I've heard argued is that Hillary is winning not only the battleground states but the blue states. Obama's wins have come in most of the red states. The arguement is that since red states aren't going to vote Democratic in the fall that the votes from those states are unimportant. To use an actual example, Clinton's campaign argues that Mississippi voting for Obama on Tuesday is not very significant, because the population of Mississippi as a whole is going to vote for McCain in the fall.

I agree that the only way Hillary can make a case for the nomination is if she wins the popular vote. If you lose the popular vote and the delegate race, I don't think there's a way for her to be the nominee, without facturing the Democratic party.

I don't see that as realistic either. I think that this is Clinton's last chance at the White House. Taking out Barack so she would have a shot in 2012 would really damage the party, with no guarantee of success in 2012. No matter who wins this fall it's going to be an improvement over Bush, and it is going to be easier to beat the McCain of 2008 than an incumbent McCain of 2012. If Hillary really cares about UHC, she should cut a deal where she runs with Barack as his Vice President. That would allow her to focus her efforts exclusively on UHC.

 

Which is silly, when you think it about the inverse--California or New York will not go for McCain if Clinton isn't the candidate.

Both candidates have some pretty ambitious plans, and you can not implement them without the help of Congress. Good showings in all states--even in red states where you know you'll lose--is helpful to the local reps and senators, increasing majorities in both the Senate and House. You're not going to see any form of UHC passing if you're only holding a 52% majority in Congress. The focus on all 50 states, instead of just swing states, was one of the first changes that Howard Dean made when he became DNC Chair in 2005--replacing current Clinton campaign manager Terry McAuliffe.

 

One thing that should be pointed out is that, in order to win an election, a democrat needs to win a few red states and swing states. Likewise, a republican needs to win a few blue states and swing states. Further, beating a fellow democrat in a primary is no indicator of how well you'll do against a republican in the general election. The eventual democratic nominee doesn't need to beat Barack or Hillary in the general, so the argument of "I should be the nominee because I won states X, Y, and Z" doesn't really hold any water. The nominee needs to beat McCain.

 

Today's headlines proves how wrong that thinking can be. Even though I believe Obama is getting a bum rap, the press is eating him up on the Pastor Wright issue. Stories like these make me more sympathitic towards the victims of a media that is becoming more vicious with each campaign cycle, rather than the reverse. But it is quite clear that any notion that Obama may be a closet racist (which I believe he IS NOT) can be too damaging with white people in the the national campaign for him to survive against the Republican.

This is really a shame because Obama had proven that he can rise above the race issue, and now he had an idiot, who obviously IS a racist, on his campaign. That was poor political judgment, but not a "reflection" by any means. This is an opening for Hillary, regadless of how unfair. I'm sure there is a lot of talking going on in the Democratic "backrooms" tonight.

This is in stark contrast to McCain who embraced TV evangelical phony, John Hagee last month. A guy who is just as bad as Pastor Wright, but eveyone else pretty much yawed at, while McCain accepted his endorsement with a big sell-out grin on his face. So while Obama has to apologize and crawl humbly before the press, McCain gets a big bump out of all the negative media hype aimed at O. I even heard a Republican pundit on CNN claim that the Republicans were "back in business" after today. Take a look at how McCain explains his newly adopted crony:

http://thinkprogress.org/2008/03/12/mccain-hagee-anti-gay/

Hagee, "taken out of context?" Yeah, right, Son of Bush.

 

Chandos, the problem is that McCain is no longer running a campaign. He's won the nomination (probably feels he has for some time) and hasn't really started his national campaign yet, while the Democrats are eating each other alive. He can get away with things like that and not get any bad press, and he knows it. This is what any politician would have done in his place. The question is, what would he have done if he were still fighting off Huckabee or Romney in a real race?

 

Indeed. This is also why McCain rushed to get Bush's endorsement as soon as the nomination was wrapped up--he could get it over with when the least number of people are paying attention.

I really hate the focus on proxies. Between Samantha Powers, John Hagee, Jeremiah Wright, and Geraldine Ferraro, the press has spent the better part of the week trying to create a race, religion, and/or gender war instead of focusing on the campaigns. (Fun fact: who noticed the new indictments against Jack Abramoff's lobbying firm, and which two candidates received large sums of money from the firm? Anyone?) Powers should have been the model for how this gets handled by anyone--someone involved in the campaign says something stupid, candidate says they disagree, the person resigns, life moves on.

 

You might want to ask Geraldine Ferraro about that.

Obama hasn't risen above race, his entire campaign is based on race.

 

It's been a great primary season, Snook. You should try paying attention to some of it. (Sorry, couldn't resist the snark. )

In all seriousness, I've been watching pretty closely and have yet to see Obama using race in his campaign--I'm sure he noticed how well that approach worked for Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, and has been very good at deflecting race-baiting (by both Clinton and the press). If you have examples that show otherwise, I'd love to see them.

 

While I'd love to see Huckabee or Romney tear McCain a new one over his affiliations with religious extremists, I am quite doubtful if that would happen. The only Republican whom I could expect to seriously protest would be Paul, but I'm not even sure if he's still in the race.

 

He's not, he dropped out two weeks ago...though I noticed a few fresh Ron Paul '08 campaign signs out this morning on my way in to work. His supporters are nothing if not devoted.

Sometimes I wonder if you and I even live in the same country.

 

I'm just not as emotionally involved (as he isn't my guy) so it is easier for me to step back and see the big picture. Here is what I see

1. A man who has never had a "real" job in his life
2. A man with some legislative experience, but no executive experience
3. A man who is immune to criticism at the risk of being called a racist. To the point that it is considered racist to mention his middle name (Note- The fact that his name is Hussein is meaningless to me, but the fact that when it is mentioned it is considered racist is deplorable)
4. Per the AP he is getting 83% of the black vote
5. A man who is very photogenic, charming as all hell, but says nothing.

As much as I despise Clinton I at least feel she may be qualified for the job. The fact that the media treats Obama with kid gloves is bothersome to me. It took the internet to expose that his pastor and mentor is a racist. Where the hell has the media been over the past two years. Even Fox didn't figure this one out.

Geraldine Ferraro had it correct. If Obama had been a white man his campaign would have never made it out of Iowa. She told the obvious truth and look at what happened to her (note- I don't like her either, but she did make sense.)

Trust me, we do live in the same country. The fact that we can have two wildly different opinions is one of the things that makes this country great. Kudos to you if you see him beyond race, I'm just informing you that there are plenty of people (people you may or may not know) who do see this being about race.

 

1. So being an attorney and a constitutional law professor at the University of Chicago Law School, one of the most prestigious and conservative law schools in the country, don't count as "real" jobs. Check.

2. This is also true of John McCain and Hillary Clinton. The voters chose them when given the option of several governers and a former mayor to choose from. When you look at the bang-up job Dick Cheney and Don Rumsfeld have done - two pillars of executive branch experience - this hardly seems like an important qualification any more, does it.

3. Please, grow up. You know very well why people are using his middle name. It's inflammatory because by using it you're effectively calling him a muslim manchurian candidate and/or deliberately associating him with our country's number one enemy of the previous decade. I honestly can't believe I have to explain this to you. If his name were Barack Johnson Obama no one would ever know about it or EVER bring it up. His middle name is being used specifically for a mode of attack, which is obvious when you pay attention to who is using it, when and why.

It's being used to appeal to the base prejudice of people too ignorant to realize that Hussein is a very common surname in North Africa and is utterly meaningless. If it were common to use every other politician's middle name, or if he insisted on people using it (like Hillary Rodham Clinton did with her maiden name), you'd have a point. As it is, you're being disingenuous.

4. That used to be the Clintons, and they're hardly black. This defection also has a lot to do with Bill's comments after South Carolina, which pissed a lot of blacks off.

5. True, true, and there's plenty of substance to what he says, if you actually listen.

I can understand that you choose to see his overall candidacy as being about solely about his race, many do. I'm sure some people are voting for him simply because he's black, but they're a tiny minority no different from those who vote for Hillary simply because she's a woman or McCain simply because he's the sole white male left. I was disagreeing with your assertion that Obama has based his campaign on race, which if you've actually paid attention to his campaign and not what other people are saying about his campaign, you'd know was not true. In my opinion, it's been quite the opposite. As I've said many times, I can't stand race-baiting baffoons like Sharpton and Jesse Jackson. Obama is doing as well as he is precisely because he's avoided all that nonsense. Believe me, if he'd gone that route, I'd be bashing him right along side you.

As for Geraldine Ferraro exposing the "obvious truth," that's your opinion. That she said it and you agreed does not an "obvious truth" make. Former U.S. Presidents Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson and Alan Keyes may also disagree that being black isn't exactly a springboard to the White House. It was a self-evidently absurd statement, especially when you consider that it was old-establishment Washington warhorses like Ferraro who were saying that he'd never be a viable national candidate because he's black as little a year ago. Come on.

As for the media going soft on him, I can see how some think that's true. Others, like me, see the media's gleefully passing along the Madrassa nonsense, the lapel-pin "why isn't he a patriot?" flap, the photo of him without his hand over his heart during the national anthem but reporting it as the pledge of allegiance, all without providing much context or fact checking, and busting his balls about Farrakhan while giving McCain a free pass bout Hagee...and conclude that the media are being just as big a douchebags to him as they are to anyone else.

It's not about emotional involvement, it's about intellectual honesty. It's silly to assume you're the only one with a bead on the big picture, or that your view of it isn't a little hazy.

 

I'm a big supporter of Obama, and I think Ferraro chose her words very poorly. Do I think Barack winning 83% of the black vote had a big effect on his victory margins in Lousiana, Mississippi, Georgia, South Carolina, Viginia, Maryland, and DC? Yes. When you win 83% of a significant demographic group, you're going to do well.

However, saying that he never would have got out of Iowa without the black vote is ludicrous. I'm not saying Barack didn't win the black vote in Iowa - [sarcasm] I'm sure he got all 19 black people who live in Iowa to vote for him [/sarcasm]. The point I'm making is that Obama's race can only be cited as a reason for his success in states that have a racially diverse population - and specifically have a significant black population. Ferraro's example of Iowa - where blacks make up 2% of the population according to the U.S. Census Bureau - can hardly be used as an example of Barack winning because of his race.

If you really want to take a "big picture" look at Barack's campaign, you're going to need to convince me how we won so many states by double digit margins where blacks make up very small percentages of the electorate. In fact, here is a list of states that Barack won where blacks make up less than 5% of the electorate (listed alphabetically): Alaska, Colorado, Hawaii, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Nebraska, North Dakota, Utah, Washington (state, not DC), Wisconsin, and Wyoming. Sure, those are all relatively small states, but it's Barack winning all those small states that have him in the lead. So I'll buy the arguement that Barack won Lousiana by double digits because of the black population - because Louisiana's black population is 32% of the electorate. I'll need a better explanation for states like Iowa (2%) or Washington (3%) or Maine (less than 1%).

 

I'm sure that many black people would call me a racist. I despise quotas and affirmative action. I believe that behavior is primarily a result of choices made and not the fault of other groups or disadvantage. That said, were I an American, I'd likely be voting Obama. I'd be doing it because I like what the man says, how he behaves in public, and the way he's run his campaign. Some may not believe me, but I'm color blind with Obama because he's acted color blind. Nothing would lose my vote faster than someone saying "I'm poor and it's the white man's fault!" -- at that point I feel it's the other fellow being racist and illogical and I am just plain not interested in voting for a bigot no matter what his skin color.

So if someone like me (white, privileged, opposed to many policies that racially based politicos advocate) would be willing to vote for Obama, that says to me that he has not run a campaign based on race. If you look at the results, he would not have gotten as far as he has with only the black vote. It seems pretty clear to me that a fair number of Americans from other ethnic backgrounds are buying into what he's saying.

Are there any primaries tomorrow (Tuesday the 18th)?

 

No. In fact, there are no more primaries until Pennsylvania on April 22nd.

 

Well that truly packs the white dog. What am I going to do for entertainment until then? Watch my own government tear itself apart? Dullsville!

More seriously, what are the Hill and the Bammer gonna do while waiting for Pennsylvanians to vote? Stab each other for a few weeks? All the time this is going on they have to know that Mccain is gearing up to run one heckuva campaign. They should try to strike a deal (easier said than done) and get ready to fight their real enemy -- the Republican war machine.

On another note, if Hillary still wants to fight the good fight, she should muzzle her husband. The more I see him, the less I like her. He's a frigging albatross around her neck (at least to people like me.)

 

Apparantly Obama is going to be giving a major speech tomorrow addressing Wright, Rezko and other issues tomorrow in Philidelphia somewhere. So you should have plenty of entertainment for tomorrow, LKD.

PS - Packs the white dog? Is that a Canadianism I've never heard?