Hillary's argument to the superdelegates will have to be based on something. Pledged delegates? No, she can't win more than Obama. The popular vote? Perhaps, but Obama will continue to win popular votes. Should Michigan revote, Obama will win a ton of votes there. So it seems highly unlikely that she'll make up the current popular vote deficit of 600,000 votes. What argument is she left with? I'm a better candidate. This, unfortunately, is in the eye of the beholder.
Posted by nerdoff at March 6, 2008 11:50 AMTurkana,
I am puzzled. Why are the media (and lots of progressive bloggers) giving Hillary Clinton a win in Texas on Tuesday night? The numbers are still being finalized, but it looks like Obama is going to come out of TX with a net gain of 4-6 delegates. I realize she won a slim margin in the popular vote there, but since when does that trump the delegate total? Let's recall that for weeks leading up to Mar. 4, every pundit in the business was telling us that Hillary was so far behind Obama in earned delegates that she absolutely needed blowout 20-point wins to salvage her campaign. She didn't come anywhere close to acheiving that, but yet she is getting all kinds of positive spin.
VT and RI were a wash. HRC won a small number of delegates in OH, while Obama is winning a small number of delegates in TX. When the dust settles she is going to have a net gain of 5-7 delegates out of 370+ that were up for grabs. In what bizarre universe does that translate into a big night for HRC?
Further, let's consider that since Tuesday evening, a few more superdelegates have declared for Obama, offsetting her tiny win. And in the coming week Obama is likely to augment his lead by taking WY and MS. So how is it that the Clinton campaign has managed to sell the most optimistic assessment of Tuesday's results to the voting public, given all the evidence?
I think we are witnessing one of the great public relations scams in American political history, foisted on us by the MSM, with support from people in the blogosphere who should know better.
Posted by vinnie's cousin at March 6, 2008 12:25 PMvc,
i know that this is hard to understand, but people tend to believe that in a democracy the person with the most votes wins.
Posted by Turkana at March 6, 2008 12:32 PMvinnie's cousin, you said it yourself: ...but yet she is getting all kinds of positive spin. It IS spin. And, as must be obvious by now, spin is not merely the province of the megamedia or candidate Web sites. Bloggers are, in fact, now the most numerous spinners on the planet. Unlike the megamedia, which at least tries to defend itself when objections to spin are raised, bloggers' response is: so?
As for Turkana's main thrust here, the superdelegates will no doubt decide the race. But the question I have: before August? Or at the Convention? Are we going to see, for the first time since 1952, more than one ballot? Are we getting ready to make 1968 or 1980 look tame? Or will all be resolved in time to keep McBush from giving us 24 years of Republican rule out of 32?
Posted by Meteor Blades at March 6, 2008 12:40 PMIf you win the popular vote in a state, you get to say you won. Same thing happened in Nevada--Clinton won the popular vote, but did she win the delegate count? In MO, they tied in delegates, but we say that Obama won MO because he won the popular vote. Still, she did need big margins and didn't get it in TX. It's a long time to Apr 22 with apparently 2 more losses in store for her. I don't see her "surging", but I do see an evening out of momentum and media coverage. I actually heard one news station talking about the passion of Hillary's supporters. Yes, they have passion too.
Posted by CG at March 6, 2008 12:48 PMObama just announced that he'd raised over $55 million in February. $45 million was from online contributors and 90% was under $100. Included in the mix were 385,000 new donors.
Unlike Clinton's cash on hand, ALL of this was raided for the primaries. It's certainly true that big Mo as George Sr. liked to refer to it, may have been stopped, this week. But can anyone else here see this as yet another, far more important, election? I care greatly for the grass roots movement in politics. To my jaundiced eye, this kind of support trumps 10 big states and big donor support. I'd like to believe that 1.4 million Americans, who've voted with hard earned resources and likely will again, deserve careful consideration.
Posted by DeminNewJ at March 6, 2008 12:52 PMmb,
i think the supers will move en masse, after pa, and after fl and mi are resolved. if hillary continues to win, continues to have the momentum, and has significantly closed the numbers gaps, they move to her. if obama can stop her cold in any of those three big states (assuming revotes), it's over. and as to your post at dk, i do think there's an increasing likelihood of a unity ticket, with whoever has the momentum at the top.
Posted by Turkana at March 6, 2008 12:56 PMdinj,
she raised $30 million, and it's been pouring in, since tuesday. this is what a lot of people don't understand- they are both raking in the cash, and they are both inspiring huge turnout.
Posted by Turkana at March 6, 2008 01:00 PM"people tend to believe that in a democracy the person with the most votes wins."
turkana, I have two words for you - Al Gore.
You yourself have stated repeatedly that its the Superdelegates that count, now its the popular vote, if Clinton takes the lead in regular delegates (which she won't) then you'll say those are what count. Or it's Big States only that count. In short, any way to look at it that favors Clinton is the way you think is correct. I'm surprised at your partisanship, frankly. As Vinnie's Cousin said, we now see that it is Obama, not Clinton that comes out of Texas with the delegate win and everybody and their pooch was saying a week ago that Clinton had to win there big, delegate-wise, to have success. She did not. She stayed afloat, and thats it.
Are the pledged delegates legally bound?
I believe that after Hillary wins PA, FL and MI (revotes in the latter two), Obama's candidacy will have no rationale left. Can pledged delegates switch, or does that have to come after the first ballot?
I also envision Obama's poll numbers, both against Hillary and McCain, heading South. Again, there will be no reason left to choose Obama, even if he leads the pledged delegate count.
Posted by MarkL at March 6, 2008 01:13 PMjust saw the news about a big bombing in Iraq, many killed...and it hit me. The Clinton/Obama campaign is a gift from God for George W. Bush. $4 gas, recession, continued death in Iraq and Afghanistan....all swept from view while the Dems fight.
Posted by T2 at March 6, 2008 01:28 PMt2,
i've been clear- i would prefer the supers based their votes on the popular vote, but they are not bound to. they will, however, likely base their votes on the political landscape that has been established after further states elections.
and as for iraq- i'm sorry that the process of democracy interferes with solving the world's problems. maybe we should cancel the general election, as well.
Posted by Turkana at March 6, 2008 01:39 PMTurkana said:
"i think the supers will move en masse, after pa, and after fl and mi are resolved. if hillary continues to win, continues to have the momentum, and has significantly closed the numbers gaps, they move to her."
In other words, If it FEELS like Hillary has won, even thought she hasn't, the party hacks will ride to the rescue. Turkana, you are truly a piece of work. You should go in to the self help industry. The money's alot better.
Posted by at March 6, 2008 01:42 PMOur Dem "Eastern Front" nullifying all other (disastrous) news is also a gift from God for Geezer McBush, T2.
Posted by euzoius at March 6, 2008 01:44 PMI think Obama should quit. He's shown he can only win the little states and Red States.
Hillary has proven that she can win the major states against the media pressure and GOP mud-slinging.
Posted by Moon at March 6, 2008 01:47 PManonymous,
my, my, reality must hurt, sometimes. sorry you had a tough night, tuesday. it might get better. it might not.
Posted by Turkana at March 6, 2008 02:06 PMIn other words, If it FEELS like Hillary has won, even thought she hasn't, the party hacks will ride to the rescue.
As opposed to;
In other words, If it FEELS like Barack has won, even thought he hasn't, the party hacks will ride to the rescue.
Interesting.
Posted by snark at March 6, 2008 02:09 PMHillary now says that being the wife of a president qualifies her to be Commander in Chief relative to security concerns, and of course she thinks her buddy McOld also qualifies 'cause he was in the service. Is the wife of a brain surgeon qualified to perform brain surgery also? I didn't know that.
Posted by T2 at March 6, 2008 02:25 PMT2,
There really isn't a winning argument in that for Obama.
What's he gonna argue? "I'm just as unqualified as Clinton."
If you were stranded on an island with two other people and one of them had to perform brain surgery on you. Who would you chose? The seemingly intelligent guy who had no direct brain surgery experience? Or the seemingly intelligent woman had no direct brain surgery experience but who's married to a famous brain surgeon and spent 8 years at his side in the operating room? ;)
Posted by snark at March 6, 2008 02:32 PMnerdoff,
i'm deleting that last comment. you're losing it.
Posted by Turkana at March 6, 2008 02:33 PMThanks, Turkana, I was just going to call for it. Wasn't the nerdoff/green heron/albatross/et al. banned before? That one's been a troublemaker at a lot of blogs I've been to lately.
Posted by iamcoyote at March 6, 2008 02:36 PMI think Obama should quit. He's shown he can only win the little states and Red States.
Hillary has proven that she can win the major states against the media pressure and GOP mud-slinging.
Actually, Obama can turn some of those red states blue. Survey USA has really interesting polling data of the electoral college with Obama vs McCain and Clinton vs McCain.
Posted by CA Pol Junkie at March 6, 2008 02:40 PMcoyote,
i don't know if he's been previously banned. not since i've been here (that i know of).
capj,
the best news from that survey is that both clinton and obama beat mccain, and by very similar margins. there are some questionable calls, in that poll, as big tent democrat points out, but i still think the key will be fl, mi, oh, and pa.
Posted by Turkana at March 6, 2008 02:47 PMQuite a few folks want Senator Clinton to sit primly in a straight backed chair, cross her ankles, fold her hands in her lap and STFU. Just be a good girl they say, we'll take care of everything and some day a woman will come along that we do like and we promise to give her a chance. But for now, you're causing problems; so please go away before you embarrass yourself and us.
Obama keeps saying he has better judgment, which trumps experience. Well, the next time I get on board an airplane, I'll ask the pilot whether he has good judgment or lots of experience. If he says judgment, I'll just go back to the terminal an wait for the next flight.
The only math that counts:
The winner of the nomination will be the candidate who has the votes of ONE HALF + ONE of the delegates at the Denver Convention, whether won or "super," with or without delegates from Florida and Michigan.
All of the rhetoric about most pledged delegates, national popular vote, big states, red states, blue states, Independent/Republican voters, one or the other should drop out for the good of the party, etc. is just that, rhetoric, an attempt to influence public opinion and delegates.
ONE HALF + ONE of the delegates at the Denver Convention.
That's it.
exactly, clk.
Posted by Turkana at March 6, 2008 03:22 PMTurkana,
she raised $30 million, and it's been pouring in, since tuesday. I understand very well. They ARE both doing very well and beating the Repubs like a worn carpet.
My point was, and I haven't seen a breakdown lately and I'm almost out the door, but from the figures I've seen until very recently, perhaps Big Mo is shifting, it's a fact that Obama has been generating more money from SMALL, grassroots donors by a ratio of at least 2.5 to 1 and I believe, it may be much higher. Please dig up the facts and I'll read them later.
In the grassroots election, Obama is a huge leader. That means quite a bit to me.
Posted by DemnNewJ at March 6, 2008 03:26 PMi still think the key will be fl, mi, oh, and pa. - Turkana
I sure hope not. There's no law that says we need to have the same fights in the same handful of states every four years. I want to put "red states" into play like Colorado, Nevada, Virginia, North Carolina, and even Texas. That gives us many more opportunities to win.
Well, the next time I get on board an airplane, I'll ask the pilot whether he has good judgment or lots of experience. If he says judgment, I'll just go back to the terminal an wait for the next flight. - Stanley
So you're voting for McCain then? Neither Clinton nor Obama has anywhere near the experience McCain has, but both need to be able to make the case they have better judgment.
Posted by CA Pol Junkie at March 6, 2008 03:32 PMHillary has NO EXPERIENCE that qualifies her to be Commander-in-Chief??
I disagree!
She has served on Committee on Armed Services (since 2003) and she is also a Commissioner of the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe(since 2001).
It's not as great as being a "Present" voting State Senator from Illinois, but still...
:P
Posted by Moon at March 6, 2008 03:48 PMCA Pol Junkie
On that same page, it shows Hillary beating McBush and NOT having to turn staunch Republican voters to her side.
I don't think that GOP voters in Red States are going to automatically shun McCain, even if they voted for Obama in the Dem primary.
A poll is one thing, a vote is another, as we found out several times in this campaign (to the astonishment of MSNBC)
Posted by Moon at March 6, 2008 03:53 PMHillary's outrageous mudslinging continues.
Today our junior backbenching senator was out (again) pumping up McOld as having "clearly crossed the Commander-in-Chief threshold" (whatever that is, but whatever) and that "when she and McCain get on that stage they both will have crossed" the magic "threshold".
Obama? You'll have to ask him, she certainly couldn't say (she can only imply, ha-ha), but she's sure that Repub McCain has crossed the "threshold", just not her fellow Dem.
Look for that percent of Obama supporters who will not support Hillary in the general to start to rise to the levels of Hillarians who won't support Obama. This is going to get out of control VERY fast now.
Posted by euzoius at March 6, 2008 03:59 PMCommander in Chief McCain? Really? Did you watch him try to read that stupid speech while squinting in full blink on Tuesday? Either Obama or Hillary will cream him.
Hell, Dennis Kucinich could beat him with his wife tied behind his back.
Posted by TIKI AL at March 6, 2008 04:37 PMMoon, it is a good thing to have a broader base of support, which means more independents, a few Republicans, and definitely not "staunch Republicans".
If the general election race is about who has the most experience, either of our candidates will lose. If the race is about who will do the right thing, then we will win. Our candidate needs to be speaking to the voters on those terms instead of playing on McCain's home turf.
Posted by CA Pol Junkie at March 6, 2008 04:37 PMGood news! Michigan will do a re-vote! It will be a party-run primary like New Mexico had.
Posted by CA Pol Junkie at March 6, 2008 05:07 PMCA Pol Junkie Maybe, but there's a better than good chance those Red States will go to McCain.
I would say that Hillary is a pretty sure bet to beat McCain, but Obama is not. Not that he can't win, but it's more of a risk.
Posted by Moon at March 6, 2008 05:18 PMI would say that Hillary is a pretty sure bet to beat McCain, but Obama is not. Not that he can't win, but it's more of a risk. - Moon
You're entitled to your opinion. With Clinton, the campaign would be narrowly targeting a small set of persuadable voters in a limited number of states like in 2000 and 2004. An Obama campaign would be able to target many more voters in many more states like (ironically) 1992. I think the Obama strategy gives us a better chance of winning, but that's not why I support him.
Posted by CA Pol Junkie at March 6, 2008 05:52 PMCLK and Turkana has the one half plus one gets the nominee. Wrong math or wrong rules, that doesn't get you the nomination. If you go to Denver with that in mind, forget it, it won't happen. Several roll calls later maybe we see a swing to one or the other, or maybe John Edwards will get the call after the third roll call is finished. He might be the uniter that all those folks conventioning will go for. Send these two to the curb.
I saw the SurveyUSA polls. They look interesting as a starting point don't they. The assumptions they make are a little whacked. But it sure shows a tighter race than many here probably thought it would be. No landslides, a slip up could lose it real easy.
Posted by peter at March 6, 2008 09:47 PMhate to burst your bubble, peter (no i don't!), but with the free pass mccain's been getting from the media, and with the dems in the middle of a hot fight, you should be worried that he's already losing to both of them...
Posted by Turkana at March 6, 2008 09:57 PMLets begin some real dialogue about that foreign policy and commander in chief experience Hillary is claiming for herself and her "best friend" John McCain. She will lose her own argument against him, now that she "crossed the threshold"
with him. She has put herself in a postion to debate him on this issue if she becomes the Democratic Nominee,hre wins. And she bloodies Obama enough so MCain gets to say even the Democrats (Hillary supporters) agree Obama hasn't got the right stuff to be Commander in Chief, the little darling is listening to "celestial Choirs".
The two warmongers on the same page, nice. The Democradtic Party split in two by the "kitchen sink" campaign. The Clintons at their best, we lost the Congress in "94 because of them and it will happen again with Hill & Bill in charge. What will be different? Even now she refuses to let us know who Bill took and is taking money from Where are those tax returns for 2002,2003,2004,2005,2006, those have already been filed and are avaiable, why do democratic voters have to wait till April 15th to know? What contracts will be stalled, what pardons will be granted, what deals will be made for that Bill money??? Democrats have a right to know now!
The dems have a convoluted system where caucus-folk have more power than primary-folk and super-dels have more power than caucus-folk.
To campaign against super-dels having free will while supporting the caucus system is laughably hypocritical.
Everyone should be allowed to vote for who they wish, we should hope that is with good conscience and for whom they feel will win the GE.
Anything else is BS.