The reason I want Hillary to drop out is not a matter of confidence. I simply want the Democrats to get on with the General Election, and to get off this potentially dangerous road toward a delegate/convention fiasco.
If Hillary just hangs in because she is not mathematically eliminated even though she is clearly losing it hinders our ability to unify the party and start campaigning against McBush.
Posted by midwestdem at February 26, 2008 08:37 AMI see momentum swinging to Obama in TX just like its swung to him in other states. The way the system is in TX, it's proportional, so Clinton would need to win a landslide to gain much inroad into Obama's delegate count. It won't happen. But the question I have at this point is - lets say Clinton does get back to even or ahead. We currently have every national poll showing her losing, and usually badly to McOld, where Obama is mostly trouncing McOld. Does the Democratic Party want a nominee that can't win? I feel that may have something to do with the momentum Obama has generated over the last 6 weeks.
Posted by T2 at February 26, 2008 08:56 AMt2,
in july 1988, dukakis was what- 18 points ahead of bush i? electability arguments are the least persuasive.
midwestdem,
this is an election. we don't do coronations, or hillary would have been crowned, last summer. if she has a chance to prove she is the people's choice, she has every right to do so.
Posted by Turkana at February 26, 2008 09:08 AMThe reason I want her to stay in is because I WANT this delegate convention "fiasco". I want the superdelegates to have to really stop and think about electing Obama as our nominee, a candidate with all the bad aspects of Kerry and Gore rolled into one!
Of course, if Obama is the nominee, it'll be amusing to watch blogs like KOS squirm when he doesn't prove to be the wonderful guy they think he is....
Posted by at February 26, 2008 09:14 AMThe squirming is coming. The drugs and alcohol wearing off, a hangover will follow, and wondering what happened after that. Democrats to lose is tha mantra this year...they're losing it each day this goes on. They lost it the momment race and gender entered the equations.
Posted by peter at February 26, 2008 09:22 AMT2, most Hillarians don't believe there's any reality behind the national polls and are dead certain that it's not Hillary who can't win in Nov, but Obama. And that Repubs are "really" voting for Obama in the primaries, not Dems. They're convinced of it.
And that Rove's Repubs "really" want to face the hopelessly inexperienced, incompetent muslim. Indeed, Team Clinton is even helpfully laying the groundwork for those Repub themes right now.....
As I said the other day, if she wins either OH or TX, she's in it till Doomsday, the delegate "count" will be meaningless. Hell, if she even wins RI, she'll probably say "Now we move on to PA!" (weaker cheers). Will her supporters call for her to concede if she doesn't win both "big" states? I can't see it.
The Clintons aren't dropping out if Hillary wins one of these "big" states, and don't seem to have a great deal of concern for the effect on the "party". They do have a great deal of interest in being declared The Most Influential Power Couple in American History (tm), however.
Posted by euzoius at February 26, 2008 09:23 AMAaaand will it really help the party if we crown Obama before all the voters have had their say? You may wish Hillary would roll over and play dead, but McCain certainly isn't going to. All the starry eyed speeches in the world aren't going to change that fact. It's going to be a long, hard slog to November, and nobody's going to hand Obama or Hillary anything for free.
Posted by Blue Jean at February 26, 2008 09:29 AMI think "solid lead" in Ohio may not be as solid as some would hope. I see Obama winning in Texas now, and depending on how the momentum goes, pretty much a tie in Ohio. I haven't seen enough about Rhode Island, but I suspect the lead there is going to shrink too. In short, Clinton has a good chance of coming out of March 4th being further behind in the delegate count.
Everything is moving towards Obama now. Wisconsin was once a firewall, then it was Texas and Ohio. Now it's maybe Pennsylvania where Rendell says a black man can't win. At some point the money will dry up for H. Clinton and she'll have no choice but to give up, probably too late to avoid damage to her political career.
Posted by Bob In Pacifica at February 26, 2008 09:31 AMTurkana,
I'm not talking about a coronation. The scenario I put forth is one of her continuing to be behind overall but still in the race technically. It isn't fair to put my comment in that light. I have come to this opinion over time having seen Obama win so far in the primary season.
I take your point about her possible emerging as the people's choice and her right to run. I just do not see it happening now or I would not want her to bow out.
Turkana, if you want to compare Obama to Dukakis...well, I'd say there may be a couple differences between them. And the Bush you allude to was the sitting vice-president of a two term president...hardly an unknown. I'm starting to find it tedious that every poll indicating a positive for Obama is dismissed as baloney. I'll say the polls that count are the ones we vote at...the ones where Obama has won 11 straight.
Posted by T2 at February 26, 2008 09:32 AMThe primaries have NEVER existed to allow "all voters to have their say", indeed the whole goal of (unanimously approved) Super Tuesday was to short-circuit a lengthy "choice" process. Because it's important in our crappy, corrupt corporate media environment to have a candidate when the criminal party has one.
Posted by euzoius at February 26, 2008 09:34 AMSUSA's poll also shows that the margin of error on those early votes is huge.
2,000 state of Texas adults were interviewed by SurveyUSA 02/23/08 through 02/25/08. Of them, 1,780 were registered to vote. Of them, 704 were determined by SurveyUSA to have already voted in the 03/04/08 Democratic Primary, or to be likely to vote on or before Election Day. Of the 25% of respondents who have already voted, it’s Clinton 51%, Obama 46%.
25% of 704 is 176 respondents, which would translate to a MoE of about 7.39 percent.
So they are statistically tied in early voting.
Posted by Siberian at February 26, 2008 09:45 AMbob,
the polls are holding steady in ohio, and she has strong institutional support. same in rhode island. wisconsin was never claimed as her firewall. after super tuesday, her campaign all but conceded everything until march 4. if she wins oh and tx, you can bet the money will start pouring in. as i said in the post, if she loses tx, she's done.
t2,
a couple months ago, clinton was even or ahead of mccain, in most polls. she's had nothing but bad press, since. if she pulls off these wins, and gets back into the race, those polls will shift again. mccain has better press, and is easily as well-known, as poppy bush was, in 1988. it's absurd to read anything into polls this far our. six months ago, we were headed for a clinton-giuliani showdown. how did that work out?
midwestdem,
considering we're just a week away from her supposed firewall, why don't we just wait and see. if she can actually pull it off, it would mean she does actually potentially have the support of the people. new hampshire showed that the unexpected can happen. this was her claimed strategy, for a month, so let's see what happens.
euzolus,
as you know, i've written quite a bit about our crappy system, but i strongly disagree that we need to crown our winner on any set timetable. if clinton can win the big ones, on march 4, she has a legit shot at proving she's the legit democratic choice. the process shouldn't be short-circuited just to make it easier, or to make one candidate's supporters happy. if she loses tx, it's over. if she wins tx, obama's claim as frontrunner becomes very tenuous.
Posted by Turkana at February 26, 2008 09:54 AMHILLARY's MANTRA:
resilient fighter
OBAMA:
untested
Fight the good fight.....
Turkana,
That was the greatest response in a single post I've ever seen!
Let's see what happens.
Posted by midwestdem at February 26, 2008 10:08 AMClinton is not going to get substantial cash if she gives it her best shot in friendly states and finds that the nomination is further from her reach. Right now, she's about 160 pledged delegates behind Obama and needs to win 58% of all the remaining pledged delegates to have more than Obama. If she doesn't gain any ground on March 4th, she would have to win 62.6% of what remains, including in territory hostile to her (like WY and MS March 11th). Super delegates will not jump to her rescue to nominate the candidate with less votes, less delegates, less cash, less organization, less enthusiasm, and worse polls for the general election. There are no moral victories for her: Obama has cleaned Clinton's clock in 11 straight contests, and now she needs to show that she can beat Obama handily in territory she has claimed as friendly to her. 51% won't cut it: no more excuses.
It's looking to me that Obama will come away from March 4th with substantially more pledged delegates than Clinton anyway. A 5-10 point win in the Texas primary and a 15-20 point win in the Texas caucus will net Obama another 20 delegates, and it looks like the final result in Ohio will be pretty much a split decision. If these states continue to follow the pattern as everywhere else, where Obama gains when he has a chance to campaign and then out-GOTVs Clinton, it will all be over March 5th.
Posted by CA Pol Junkie at February 26, 2008 10:18 AMBTW, Obama is still gaining in Ohio polling. The latest Rasmussen has it a 5 point race, where it was 8 last week. Another poll came out with a 4 point race. The polling consensus last week was an 8-11 point race. I expect we'll see more tightening when Survey USA polls again.
Posted by CA Pol Junkie at February 26, 2008 10:24 AM"...The drugs and alcohol wearing off, a hangover will follow, and wondering what happened after that...."
was pants pissing peter talking about Dear Leader and the ReThugs?
as a former Edwards supporter I think Hillary has to drop out if she does not win both Texas and Ohio
Posted by Gay Veteran at February 26, 2008 10:26 AMSurvey USA is out with this week's poll from Ohio: Clinton 50, Obama 44. The margin was 9 last week.
Posted by CA Pol Junkie at February 26, 2008 10:47 AMTurkana, you reference Survey USA, Rasmussen and CNN polls in your article and by 9:54 AM you are saying the polls are unreliable? Which is it? I certainly agree that, since neither party has selected it's nominee, trying to see what reality will be in September is a exercise, nothing more. But now, today, Feb.26, Obama is much better again McOld and that is why I used the word "currently" in my original reply. Currently. And my premise was that may be having influence on the electorate. Currently.
Posted by T2 at February 26, 2008 11:34 AMt2,
polls of an election that's a week away are incalculably more reliable than polls of an election that's eight months away. currently is irrelevant, except as can be spun.
Posted by Turkana at February 26, 2008 11:40 AMThese polls are saying that more people are more inclined to favor Obama over McOld than Hillary over McOld. It means Hillary is not as favorable a candidate as Obama to most people, not that she cannot beat McOld, and not that Obama's numbers vs McBush would stay at their current levels. Comparing this to the July 88 Dukakis polls is comparing apples to oranges.
It doesn't do any good to deny the reality of the situation---Hillary is not as popular a prez candidate against McBush as Obama. Poll after poll is telling us this. All things being equal, she'll have a harder time of it. Ignore it or rationalize it away at our peril.
Posted by euzoius at February 26, 2008 11:59 AMHillary is not as popular a prez candidate against McBush as Obama
She's also utterly incompetent. She's proved her incompetence in practice over the primary campaign. That is a fact that cannot be argued with. She cannot run a winning campaign even when she starts with a tremendous advantage. Absent reverse-sexist considerations, who would even consider voting for her?
.
Turkana...are you disavowing your initial post, which began "The latest polls show Hillary Clinton bla bla bla"? May I ask, with respect, by what other means is one to determine the relative strength of candidates, as they stand today, currently? Here's one way..how about election results? 11 wins in a row indicates some strength...or are elections also irrelevant. That would bring us back to the "Coronation" topic, I suppose.
Posted by T2 at February 26, 2008 12:43 PMhillary can't beat mccain.
period.
Posted by marblex at February 26, 2008 02:29 PMI think the Obama-anians need to step back and take several long, deep breaths.
There is no coronation. So stop acting like there is one.
You want a non-democratically elected official? Go over to the goddamn kleptocracy that they have over in the Russian federation. They arrest those who speak out (shades of the USSR, all over again).
I live in PA. I haven't voted yet.
You Obama-anians better let me have my say. First.
All of you--no matter whether you are for Obama or for Clinton, wait until ALL the states have had their primaries.
ALL of them.
The Obama-anians are just playing into the hands of the MSM. You like that? Being the facilitators/echoists of the Great Rethuglican Noise Machine? That's what the MSM is. They are going to push McOld far and wide, and to the hilt.
And the MSM has amply and blatantly illustrated their hatred of women who run for higher-order political levels (as in, say, for President). They will attempt to twist and turn everything--including baseless rumors--into reportage to tell all of us how badly Hillary Clinton is doing.
IS she really doing horribly?
Not really.
But the distortive effects of the MSM in reporting politics (since apparently when the Rethuglicans took over in the Congress in 1992 or whenever that was in the thereabouts time frame), it has been downhill from there.
And you Obama-anians are playing right into their hands. "Why, the MSM has been saying that Hillary has funding problems, and can't get traction! Her criticisms of Obama are just not sticking! They've been saying it for weeks! IT MUST BE TRUE!"
Bullshit. And there are more colon-excrete-ing materials coming from where that all originates.
From the bowels of Turd Blossom's Rethuglican party.
And I am completely tired of the Obama-anians trying to get on that Rovian bandwagon. Weaving story lines that aren't there.
So please stop it.
I am completely tired of the nearly 8 years of the out-and-out fascism that we have had. I am tired of this goddamn war--both in Iraq and Afghanistan. (On Huffington Post today, the Head of the Joint Chiefs says Afghanistan isn't going well, but not half as badly as Iraq.) I am tired of this long-term recession that has been hanging around since January 2001. I am tired of not having a positive outlook toward what the future may bring.
Our nation is very very sick. Soaring rhetoric won't get the job done. Telling us in TV ads (I see them from the Ohio stations, as I live near the eastern border of Ohio, near Sharon, PA) what we already know, but not really offering anything concrete about what he would really do once he gets in.
Blank canvases reflect the faces of those that peer into them. Canvases that have actual artwork done on them require people to step back to view the whole work to see what it depicts.
In truth, your Barack Obama doesn't have much experience running an infinitely complex, multi-tiered operation--he hasn't even spent one complete Senate term in office yet. And he has no such experience prior to.
He has not much (at this juncture) a lot of knowledge as to how Washington DC runs. He really doesn't. And how to make that work for the good of the people. At least Hillary Clinton has served a complete Senate term (and working on another), served as co-personal advisor to Bill Clinton for two terms, who was POTUS. She has that.
Comparing Barack Obama to JFK is laughable. JFK served in the House of Representatives, and then he served as a Senator. FIRST.
No comparison. Not. At. All.
An aside...
I hope that Huckabee stays in, until the bitter end. The Rethuglicans deserve no less. Bunch of corruptive lock-step lemmings.
And the Obama-anians are aping this behavior of the Rethuglicans.
Please stop it.
I have now said my piece.
And I am going to vote.
Posted by Troubled American at February 26, 2008 02:42 PMthis nation has dynasty fatigue. We are sick and tired of the Clintons and the Bushes. The policies of both these dynasties have ruined america. Nafta, Cafta, Shafta...increased police power, shrinking freedoms... they all happened under the watch of BOTH administrations.
I for one am done. I am willing to give someone who ISNT a Clinton a try.
We have already seen what the Clintons have to offer and it's more of the same. LOOK at Hillary Clinton's voting record.
She is a Bushie in a skirt and can NOT beat mccain.. If she is the nominee, get ready for President McCain
Posted by marblex at February 26, 2008 03:14 PMDisagree. Republicans and independents are voting in Texas. Republicans especially are being encouraged to vote Democrat for a day. I'm sorry...if Hillary doesn't win Texas as a result of Republican strategists, then she should continue to Pennsylvania. Further, Texas is a sold red state that has no chanced of voting Democratic in a general election. We are making a big deal out of Texas to push Clinton out. Anyway, the Rezko trial starts March 3...not soon enough to effect Texas and Ohio...but if things go south...everything could change by April. Neither Obama nor Clinton can win without the superdelegates...and considering Florida and Michigan are still not being counted, Hillary should ignore Texas...In fact, shouldn't Democrats be looking at the Democratic vote in all of these primaries? I want a nominee that Democrats are choosing. And I certainly wouldn't let the media and pundit blowhards dictate an outcome. In fact, it is precisely because of the Rezko trial, that there is a move to push Clinton out prematurely. But what if Rezko becomes a big problem for Obama?
Then what? In that event, Democrats should not be stuck with a wounded nominee chosen by independents and Republicans. Waiting is the best policy. Because the Republicans will have less opportunity to define our nominee.
Posted by lily15 at February 26, 2008 04:56 PMAnd Harold Ickes has walked it back. He stated that if Clinton loses both Ohio and Texas, then they will re evaluate. Huckabee is stil going and he has no chance...except if something happens with McCain.
Obama can't lock things up either...and he certainly has no claim to the Democratic electorate...
"Texas is a solid red state that has no chance of voting Dem in a general election..."
Exactly--and certainly not for Hillary. Yet is was crazily declared weeks ago to be part of the crucial unbreachable "firewall" of Team Clinton. Until it looks like it will be incinerated in a firestorm, then it's meaningless according to lily. And Team Clinton. They don't hold themselves to their statements and pronouncments, clearly.
And since you can't figure it out, lily, the "independents" decide our presidential elections, every single one of them. Can you understand how that works, mathematically?
Oh to PA, no matter what!! (weak cheers)
Posted by euzoius at February 26, 2008 05:26 PMFurther, Texas is a sold red state that has no chanced of voting Democratic in a general election. We are making a big deal out of Texas to push Clinton out.
Rapid demographic changes will at some point in the near future turn Texas blue. Texas has been very Republican of late because of Bush and because Democrats have been ignoring the state. Current polls show Clinton or Obama within single digits against McCain. We should be competing here to at least build the party, the sooner to land a death blow to the Republican presidential coalition.
lily15, only a distinct lack of money (quite a strong possibility after March 4th) would preclude Clinton from continuing the race as long as she wants. That doesn't mean she would have any better chance of winning than Huckabee, though.
Posted by CA Pol Junkie at February 26, 2008 05:26 PMClinton's still in the running if she takes Ohio. That's much more important than Texas. Texas is McCain's w/o a doubt.
Ohio has been the bell weather state for almost a century.
Posted by datadave at February 27, 2008 06:02 AMdatadave, this isn't the general election - it's the primary. The math gives Clinton basically no chance at the nomination without substantial wins in both Texas and Ohio.
Posted by CA Pol Junkie at February 27, 2008 09:19 AM