I want Hillary to win with just enough votes that she has to offer the vice presidency to Obama.
We will be unbeatable if that happens. A brokered convention will be a nightmare if she wins that way - we'll lose the kids and may never get them back. I wouldn't blame them, either. Just count the votes - let the best person win. Forget "super" delagates. As long as it isn't a tie, I don't see the reasoning behind a brokered convention, anyway.
The post-Super Tuesday contests in February have more delegates at stake than Ohio and Texas, and Obama is raking up larger margins in his wins than Clinton is likely to get from those two states. She needs to be able to compete this month, especially in Wisconsin. If she can't win there, why would she win in Ohio? I hear alot of excuses from the Clinton camp, but she needs to be able to compete for delegates where Obama is strong and win where she should be strong. In a delegate race this close, you can't pick your battles. Maybe it's just poor strategy by the Clinton campaign which can't be changed at this late date, but I've been surprised at how poorly she has done and how half-hearted her campaign has been in some states.
Posted by CA Pol Junkie at February 11, 2008 11:25 AMcapj,
ohio is much more industrial, and borders the border states. very different dynamic, and hillary is polling much better there than in wisconsin.
i agree that the clinton campaign has been terrible on strategy, among other things, but the fact remains- if she pulls off the ohio/texas/pennsylvania trifecta, the delegate race will be essentially tied.
Posted by at February 11, 2008 11:29 AMAlso because delegates are split proportionally, all the states that Obama has won, has given Hillary enough delegates to add to her Feb 5 wins and keep pace. Obamas wins look more threatening that they are, but Hillary's back is against the wall. She has to win the big states convincingly. And I hope that she does not have to give the vice-presidency to Obama. (I don't think either is interested in the VP) That would be deadly for two reasons. First I don't think they get along. Second Obama is not a great candidate to carry some of the swing states, like AZ, NV, NM. I'm not sure about the black vote in the South being enough to offset the loses in the West.
Posted by Prabhata at February 11, 2008 11:43 AMThe latest poll out of Wisconsin (released Friday) showed Clinton ahead 50-41. Is this another case, like Maine, of a state where she should win but now people think she won't? She needs to actually win states that she should be able to win. If she needs to cherry-pick states with the right amount of industry to win, it doesn't sound like a winning campaign.
I was shocked this weekend to see the margins of Obama's wins in Washington and Maine. Maine should have been neck-and-neck and there's no excuse for getting thumped by better than 2-1 in Washington, caucus or no. If her strategy is still to wait for Texas and Ohio to break out, that's just more of the same strategy we saw this weekend and like we expect tomorrow. She can't keep getting clobbered by 20 points 10 times in a row and expect to win March 4th. That's the Giuliani strategy. She needs to try, and she needs to fight, NOW.
Posted by CA Pol Junkie at February 11, 2008 11:45 AMRegarding Senator Clinton winning with just enough delegates that she has to offer the Vice Presidency to Obama, OR the reverse:
A friend of mine came up with this idea and after I thought about it, I believe he might have something. It's a compormise -- a way we can almost have our cake and eat it, too.
Clinton runs as president and Obama as Vice President, because Clinton can't wait 8 years if Obama goes first. The compromise is that Clinton only stays in office for 4 years.
This means that Obama, who is young, is only 4 years older when he runs and he virtually runs as an incumbent. The bonus is that he gets far more experience at the federal level during those four years as Vice President.
The final effect? Clinton for 4 years, Obama for 8 years = effective democratic government for 12 years!
The argument that Obama's wins in Red States are somewhat less valid while Hillary picking up Ohio and Texas would be huge is laughable. Last time I checked Ohio and Texas were pretty Red States. I think lots of little states can equal two big states when we're talking delegates. So much spin!
Posted by Bmason at February 11, 2008 11:59 AMHe is already ahead of pledged delegates count by about 60 delegates. Assuming HRC wins OH/PA/TX, do you think she can pass the lead he has now? Obama will also get some proportional delegates from these states. I do not think, she will be ahead of Obama in pledged delegate count until and unless they seat FL and MI delegates and Obama camp will fight not to seat that. If super-delegates puts her ahead, Obama camp is going to make a big deal out of this akin to GE 2000 (in that case it was real big deal, now according to rules she should get the nomination irrespective of delegates type). I think he got momentum and even if he goes against seating FL and MI delegates (like putting BR as VP candidate will give him some hope with hispanic votes and McCain is bad with rethugs aleady and looks like Obama can take the risk of going against FL and MI voters), I think he takes less heat than HRC clinching nomination by the support of super delegates (African-American voters may feel cheated by HRC). HRC is in a bind situation, if she wins nomination by super-delegates, she better manage some kind of compromise and place him as VP candidate, if not something tells me she looses GE.
ohio is purple, turning blue. pennsylvania is blue. in terms of delegates, you're right that winning lots of little states equals winning big ones, which is why winning that trifecta would bring clinton even. but having won almost all the big states, particularly those that are needed to win in november, would undoubtedly have an impact on the supers.
Posted by Turkana at February 11, 2008 12:08 PMbkk,
yes, i do think that if she wins oh/tx/pa, she will be even or ahead in delegates.
Posted by Turkana at February 11, 2008 12:10 PMShit.
Posted by paradox at February 11, 2008 12:10 PMcapj,
arg is not a valid polling company. they are as biased for clinton as zogby is against.
Posted by Turkana at February 11, 2008 12:13 PMCA Pol Junkie..I think you need to be careful because you're comparing caucuses to primaries...and for some reason there's a difference. Anyway, you make a lot of very good points and no matter what she's definitely the one who has the more difficult road ahead at this point.
Posted by emal at February 11, 2008 12:13 PMOh well, bmason beat me to it, but when Obama wins a red state it's utterly meaningless, but if Hillary were to win GOoP Mothership Tex-ass it's her "firewall". What crap.
Momentum: it's something the media and political bloggers live with. The working stiff doesn't pay too much attention to the ebbs and flows of the political sewer. With enough work, Hillary will do well in Ohio, Texas and Pennsylvania.
If Obama wins, we will have 16 years of guys to have beer with although not much of a first world world left.
Posted by Koshembos at February 11, 2008 12:14 PMemal,
obama is clearly much better at organizing for caucuses- just another example of the clinton team's ineptitude.
Posted by Turkana at February 11, 2008 12:15 PMObama's people are really pushing the inevitability theory, aren't they. For me, I think that the Democratic Party can use a brokered convention to their advantage, they just need to be very open about the proceedings, minimize the negativity man, and think strategically.
Oh, eff, we're toadts, and toast too.
Posted by Duckman GR at February 11, 2008 12:18 PMeuzolus,
texas matters because of its size- it can help get her even. but if the race ends up basically tied in won delegates, and hillary won almost all the most populous blue states (which texas obviously isn't), the supers are going to notice.
Posted by Turkana at February 11, 2008 12:21 PMA Dkos Diary has a model that predicted last weekend's wins and offers a brief glimpse at OH & TX. He's got OH going for Obama by 10, but only if
"he runs a pitch perfect campaign there." Fascinating model and eerily predictive so far (even noticed by Bill Kristol!)
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/2/9/13227/22519/239/453361
Listen carefully, because you are hearing it here first. Clinton will NOT win Wisconsin or Ohio. Obama's just starting to campaign in Wisconsin and he hasn't even started in Ohio, yet. Ohio and Wisconsin are Midwestern, heck Great Lakes even, just like Obama. He speaks their language. Sorry, Hillary hasn't been back there since she was in school. She's not from there anymore. Chicago is the cultural capitol of the Midwest, not New York or LA and especially not D.C. This is practically Obama's home turf. On top of which, those places are more conservative than New York and California, blue states but sharing much in common with red states. And the number of Latinos isn't enough to offset any built-in Obama advantage around there. Clinton's campaign will get smacked harder in Wisconsin and Ohio than it did in Maine, mark my words. If Clinton really needs Ohio to win the nomination, then stick a fork in her chances. They're done. Feel free to disregard me as an Obama supporter, but, honestly, go look at a map and the geography and the demography of these places, Wisconsin and Ohio, compare it to Illinois. Clinton's not winning Ohio or Wisconsin.
Posted by Brian Bell at February 11, 2008 12:37 PMTurkana, Do you have any links to support that she will be ahead of Pledged delegate count after winning OH/TX/PA?
I have not done any analysis myself and from what MSM is quoting, it is not possible for HRC to take lead over Obama on pledged delegate count. I hope she is eventual nominee, I think it is very difficult for her to pull this off at this time
Duckman, I don't think the Obama campaign is trying to convey inevitability so much as keep the Super Delegates from deciding the nominee in Clinton's favor. Calling for the pledged delegate winner to be the nominee is good strategy on his part since he expects to end up with more pledged delegates. If he ends up with fewer pledged delegates than Clinton, it's hard to see a scenario where the Supers would give him the nomination anyway.
Posted by CA Pol Junkie at February 11, 2008 12:44 PMHillary will win here in Ohio. I can't speak for Texas or Pennsylvania, but she has solid backing here and a strong campaign presence. Oh, sure, Kent State and the other colleges will go bonkers for Hussein Obama and the media will try to make that look like the norm.
But, don't believe it. Hillary will prevail.
Posted by LuigiDaMan at February 11, 2008 12:47 PMAfter attending an Obama rally today, I am back on the fence. I still think Clinton would make a better president as far as understanding issues, absorbing information quickly, making good decisions, etc.
But I'm starting to believe in the power of an inspirational speech. I'm starting to think it matters that Obama, better than Clinton, can change and mold the very way people think about things. It's not a tangible thing, but I think it is real. And part of me is reluctant to give up on the idea that he could somehow transform the country. Maybe he'd be a huge disappointment. Maybe he'd just be a regular politician who gives a better than average speech. But part of me wants to see what might happen.
I feel like I know what would happen with a President Hillary Clinton. I think she'd be a great president and I have high hopes that she would overcome a lot of the Hillary hatred. But there is this unknown upside to Obama that part of me wants to give a chance to.
So, I vote tomorrow and as I said, I'm back on the fence. Anyone want to knock me off?
Posted by CG at February 11, 2008 12:53 PMcg,
do you really think rhetoric will convince republicans to play nice, or the military industrial, health care, and fossil fuels industries to be human? i have no doubt that obama's charisma can influence people, but i also have no doubt that it will have no influence at all on the people that matter. they need to be fought, not compromised with.
Posted by Turkana at February 11, 2008 01:02 PMbrian,
revisit recent voting patterns in illinois and ohio. they are not comparable.
Posted by Turkana at February 11, 2008 01:03 PMCG, you capture the nature of the race very well. With Clinton, we know what kind of general election race we would have and we have a pretty good idea of how America would be governed if she were president. With Obama, there is less certainty but big upside potential if he really is transformational.
I certainly don't begrudge the dilemma many voters face, even if they end up choosing the wrong candidate. ;-) My choice was easier - I almost reflexively reject dynastic politics, so Clinton would have a steep hill to climb regardless to get my vote in the primary. I voted for Obama based on at least the possibility of political realignment which could not happen if Clinton were the nominee.
Posted by CA Pol Junkie at February 11, 2008 01:05 PMIt's true that Obama has won a lot of small states.
Even so, a bunch of the small states won by Obama in the primaries won't go democratic in the general election.
In a sense, winning a state in a primary doesn't mean much if you can't win it in the general.
do you really think rhetoric will convince republicans to play nice, or the military industrial, health care, and fossil fuels industries to be human? i have no doubt that obama's charisma can influence people, but i also have no doubt that it will have no influence at all on the people that matter. they need to be fought, not compromised with.
Ronald Reagan slammed organized labor and then won the votes of union workers in 1980. He kicked unions in the teeth as president and then got union votes again in 1984. Republicans won't play nice, for sure, but charisma can add a nice coating of teflon and win the votes of enemies.
Posted by CA Pol Junkie at February 11, 2008 01:10 PMcapj,
that's absurd. the changes that need to happen will cost some very large companies some very large amounts of money. pretty words won't help.
Posted by Turkana at February 11, 2008 01:14 PMEven so, a bunch of the small states won by Obama in the primaries won't go democratic in the general election.
Like Obama wouldn't win California, New York, New Jersey, and Massachusetts in November? Don't we want a candidate who is strong in Colorado, Kansas, Missouri, Iowa, Georgia, Virginia, etc.?
Posted by CA Pol Junkie at February 11, 2008 01:16 PMcapj, if hispanics vote McCain, it will be a close election in November in CA. So just don;t be so certain that Obama will win CA, NJ and NY. Never know what happens in 9 months.
Posted by BKK at February 11, 2008 01:19 PMTurkana, I guess it's just a matter of what approach each voter thinks will work. Personally, I don't see how a fighting approach is going to work now when it hasn't before - that's why I'm looking for more fundamental change.
Posted by CA Pol Junkie at February 11, 2008 01:22 PMi have no doubt that obama's charisma can influence people, but i also have no doubt that it will have no influence at all on the people that matter. they need to be fought, not compromised with.
But what I'm thinking about is beyond that. It's (as someone else said) more transformational than using charisma to influence opponents on a small scale. Can he get people to think differently, to turn the tide? But maybe he can't. The thing that started me thinking along these lines is his stump speech line, "I don't just want to end the war in Iraq, I want to change the way we think about war." Or something like that. But when I think about it, he hasn't, in all this time campaigning, changed the way we think about it or even said what he means by that. So maybe he doesn't have transformational powers. *sigh* Still on fence. Maybe I'll just vote for congressional rep and board of ed ;).
Posted by CG at February 11, 2008 01:24 PMcapj,
i haven't seen much fight from the dems. i'd like to.
bkk,
obama would easily beat mccain in california.
Posted by Turkana at February 11, 2008 01:26 PMThe only risk to Democrats winning the GE hands down is if Obama wins the most convention delegates, but HRC is handed the nomination by superdelegates - a scenario that would split the party, but that HRC would support, demonstrating once and for all her own willingness to put personal ambition before party. The best way to avoid such a calamity? Vote for Obama, and help ensure he has enough delegates going in to the convention to forstall any HRC shenanigans (including, of course, seating delegates from states all parties had agreed were off the table).
Posted by balthus at February 11, 2008 01:30 PMcapj, if hispanics vote McCain, it will be a close election in November in CA. So just don;t be so certain that Obama will win CA, NJ and NY.
If winning California, New York, or New Jersey depended upon getting 75% of the Hispanic vote instead of 50%, we'd be having much bigger problems nationwide. There is no point in having a discussion of electoral math unless we agree that any Democratic nominee is very likely to win in California, New York, and New Jersey.
Posted by CA Pol Junkie at February 11, 2008 01:30 PMcg,
again, it's just pretty words. the people whose minds can be changed are not the people who matter. and even on iraq, obama isn't talking about dumping the monstrosity of an embassy, and he's still talking about leaving a strike force in the region. as far as changing the way we think about war, the fact that he wants to add 92,000 troops to our military is more telling than a nicely worded catch-phrase.
Posted by Turkana at February 11, 2008 01:30 PMHispanics will vote along party lines. Regardless of the candidate.
Whoever is mentioning that Hispanics will vote for McCain if Obama is the nominee is wrong.
I have Hispanic family in CO, NM and mostly in CA. 4 out of 25 are conservatives. No changing their mind.
Posted by Seven of Six at February 11, 2008 01:47 PMcg, My evolution lead me to Hillary (via Dodd via Edwards) having said that I never thought that is who I would vote for at the beginning of this process...she was down 4th place on my preference list, with Obama ahead of her. It was a very difficult decision and I am left knowing that should Obama win I would still feel okay here and know I would support him without hesitation. He's definitely a charismatic and engaging public motivational speaker on the stump.
Having said that my biggest fear and worry about Senator Clinton had to do with the rnc hyped Village media frenzy we witnessed to the detrement of the country back in the 90's and I for one did not want a repeat of that at all! Especially when there are far more important and serious issues and challenges. Eriposte has an interesting post up today on the Complex psychological issues surrounding Clinton. At the end I think this link to Stanley Fish's piece is a must read if that is the case for you too. It explains and answers a lot of my conflict and having read it I feel better that I went with what I truly believed was right, versus what I think the prevailing narrative out there was regarding this issue.
But to be perfectly honest, I thought both candidates post Iraq war votes and plans were very similar. So I decided mostly based on her Healthcare plan (which is another priority of mine)and this tied into his commentary regarding social security.
And one other thing that helped sway me, Paul Krugman. He's been one of the few who has consistently during Nero's tenure bravely spoken out against his policies and atrocities even when it was uncool an unhip to do so...and he was right.
Lastly, I figure I'll get to vote for Senator Obama at one point in my lifetime because he's talented and young enough he'll be around a long time.
Best of Luck with your decision. It really is a dilemma. I really am just trying to give you my thought processes that played an important factor for me. I'll be interested to hear about your decision and what factors played a role in it.
Posted by emal at February 11, 2008 02:03 PM.....too bad the Democrats didn't adopt the winner take all delegates format.....this would be over by now....just like those other guys....the soon to be forgotten ones.
Posted by Goyo at February 11, 2008 02:07 PMIf it were winner-take-all, who would have won? Obama has more states, but they're smaller. Who would be on top?
Posted by CG at February 11, 2008 03:01 PMtexas..pennsylvania..ohio..she wins them..she's the nominee..she will win them
Posted by dennis at February 11, 2008 04:29 PMtexas..pennsylvania..ohio..she wins them..she's the nominee
Mathematically? Or just momentum/superdelegate-wise?
Posted by CG at February 11, 2008 04:59 PMThanks emal, that was a good article. Still torn. It's certainly more fun to support Obama--you can be hip and cool and part of the in crowd. No one will sneer at you for wearing an Obama t-shirt. Of course I wouldn't vote for him for that reason. It's kind of like religion--I'm curious what it would feel like to be an evangelical born-again Christian. To be that sure of something. I'm curious what it would feel like to be swept up in Obama-mania, but I'm just not swept up. I have poked around his website more and there is quite a bit of meat there actually, which makes me feel better.
I was reading the blog on Hillary's site and Mark Penn has an entry today about why Hillary can beat McCain and Obama can't. I agree with pretty much everything he's said. But part of me also feels that the Obama craze gives him a teflon coating and these things just won't stick or gain traction. I give up on electability--can't for the life of me figure it out.
Maybe I'll let my kids push the button tomorrow, or close my eyes and poke around at the screen until I hit one. I've never voted in a primary before (was registered independent) and I was so excited that ours actually counts this year and now I don't want the responsibility. But I can't not vote.
Posted by CG at February 11, 2008 05:28 PMcg,
i guarantee you that if obama wins the nomination, the media's gloves will come off, and they will hit him hard, dishonestly, and relentlessly, just as they do to every dem nominee.
Posted by Turkana at February 11, 2008 05:32 PMI just can't believe how much this decision is eating me up. Like my one vote in MD, where Obama is polling way ahead, is going to make or break anything.
Posted by CG at February 11, 2008 05:38 PMCG I didn't decide until last Tuesday on the day I voted either..and I was terribly torn too...and I remember at the time I had felt that Obama was going to come very close to a win up here in MA (which didn't pan out). Especially because he just received so much positive coverage with the Kennedy endorsement and already had the Kerry and our new Governor Patrick Deval endorsements.
Again good luck with your decision tomorrow.
I wouldn't want to be Hillary's VP. That's Bill's job.
Posted by lavrov at February 11, 2008 07:00 PMThanks emal and others--nice to have a support group. Is there an Undecideds Anonymous?
Posted by CG at February 11, 2008 07:34 PMBrian Bell,
Well said. Obama is the guy I'd like to have a POP with! A nice Faygo or maybe a Vernors;-)
If he wins OH that says a lot to me since OH has a lot of the Clinton base too (traditional blue-collar Dems in particular).
Posted by midwestdem at February 11, 2008 07:46 PMcd,
if it's any help, i haven't ruled out voting for gravel...
Posted by Turkana at February 11, 2008 09:12 PMDid turkana decide that he's now supporting Hillary, too?
Posted by euzoius at February 12, 2008 07:16 AMLugi
Throwing in the "Hussein" is so revealing and doesn't really deserve any part of the dialogue.
Which is it? racist, or just plain fear mongering for Hillary? What were you saying????
I think the power to inspire people is precious. History is full of moments when ordinary people were galvanized by words to make great sacrifices against seemingly crushing odds, and eventually prevailed - Tom Paine publishing his pamphlets during the Revolutionary War ('sunshine patriots') and convincing colonials to believe they could successfully resist the British Empire; the entire Declaration of Independence; Lincoln's Gettysburg Address; the American general at the Battle of the Bulge who just said 'Nuts!" when a much stronger German Army demanded his surrender; King's "I have a dream" speech, etc.
Obama has a great gift, and he seems inspired to use it to organize the American community (as he did the Chicago streets) to come together. We've been so divided by cynical pols that we hardly believe that's possible, but the times they are a' changin'...
Had HRC run 4 years ago, her story might have played out differently, but she didn't take the chance. Now her moment has passed. But she'll remain a Senator, a pretty darn substantial consolation prize, and she's got 40 million bucks. Plus she's had her 8 years in the White House already. This may be a bitter personal disappointment for her, but she ought to be thankful that she's been so very fortunate.
Posted by brooklyn at February 12, 2008 08:36 PM