MyDD :: Is The Obama Inevitability Campaign Backfiring?

Is The Obama Inevitability Campaign Backfiring?

by Todd Beeton, Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 10:15:31 PM EST

Hillary Clinton is clearly winning the message war here. On the campaign trail in Indiana today, responding to questions about Sen. Patrick Leahy's call for her to drop out of the race, Hillary Clinton framed her staying in the race as letting voters' "voices be heard."

From The AP:

"There are millions of reasons to continue this race: people in Pennsylvania, Indiana and North Carolina, and all of the contests yet to come," Clinton told reporters Friday. "This is a very close race and clearly I believe strongly that everyone should have their voices heard and their votes counted." [...]

"I believe a spirited contest is good for the Democratic Party and will strengthen the eventual nominee," she said. "We will have a united party behind whomever that nominee is. ... I look forward to campaigning over the next several months."

And as if to prove her point, look at how the AP describes the crowds at her campaign events today:

If Hillary Rodham Clinton is feeling heat from pundits and party elders to quit the race and back Barack Obama, you'd never know it from her crowds, energy level and upbeat demeanor on the campaign trail. [...]

Traveling across Indiana, the former first lady was greeted by large, enthusiastic audiences who roared their approval at her proposals to help fix the state's economic challenges.

At events here and in North Carolina on Thursday, Clinton raised the issue of whether she should quit the race, only to have it firmly batted down by her supporters.

This new Obama inevitability narrative is clearly giving the media a new lens through which to cover Clinton's campaign, all to her benefit. Clinton is also using it to cast herself as the fighter, the little guy against the forces that want to keep her down.

In Hammond, she compared the state's struggling steel industry to her own efforts to fight the odds.

"I know a little bit about comebacks," she said to cheers. "I know what it's like to be counted down and counted out. But I also know there is nothing that will keep us down if we are determined to keep on."

And she is using it to fuel a new fundraising ask of $3million by Monday night.

Have you noticed the pattern?

Every time our campaign demonstrates its strength and resilience, people start to suggest we should end our pursuit of the Democratic nomination.

Those anxious to force us to the sidelines aren't doing it because they think we're going to lose the upcoming primaries. The fact is, they're reading the same polls we are, and they know we are in a position to win.

In three days, we're facing a critical March filing deadline -- another chance to show the strength of our campaign. Let's take these three days to make something absolutely clear: we aren't going to simply step aside. You and I are going to keep fighting for what we believe in, and together, we're going to win.

Every time we are challenged to prove the strength and durability of our appeal to voters, we meet our goals. We did it in New Hampshire, we did it on February 5, and we did it again this month in Texas and Ohio.

Something tells me we won't be hearing anymore calls for Clinton to step out of the race from Obama surrogates any time soon.

Tags: 2008 presidential election, democratic nomination, hillary clinton, barack obama (all tags)

Permalink :: 209 Comments :: Post a Comment

Re: Is The Obama Inevitability Campaign Backfiring (1.75 / 4)

Is there any poll evidence of any backfiring?

In any case, isn't it time to finish this? The final result seems clear so why postpone the inevitable?

by GT on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 10:18:10 PM EST

Re: Is The Obama Inevitability Campaign Backfiring (none / 0)

Even Ralph Nader is jumping in on the act, defending Hillary's right to be a spoiler!

http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/3/28/2054 38/971

by xtrarich on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 10:35:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

The fat lady is singing if Nader... (2.00 / 5)

...is telling Hillary to stick it out.

by Hesiod Theogeny on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 10:42:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The fat lady is singing if Nader... (2.00 / 2)

truest thing in this thread

by wasder on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 10:46:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Is The Obama Inevitability Campaign Backfiring (2.00 / 4)

See, that's the real difference between Leahy's comments and the old inevitability narrative that Clinton's team pushed is that we actually have results, and while not every election is done, it's pretty easy to figure out what the end result is going to be from this point. It's like when a football game's in the fourth quarter, two minutes left, and one team is up by 35. Yeah, there's still a chance that they could lose, but it's pretty damn unlikely. With something as important as a Presidential election, I understand (particularly after the 2000 debacle) the virtue of holding off on calling a race until it's absolutely certain. But this isn't really as close as a lot of people here wish it was. Inevitable? No. Pretty damn likely and almost statistically certain? Well, yeah. But dare to dream, etc.

by Jay R on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 10:36:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Is The Obama Inevitability Campaign Backfiring (2.00 / 1)

Um, the Colts beat the Patriots under conditions similar to those and won the Superbowl. Not to mention the success of another Manning against the inevitability train of the Patriots in 2007.

Hoosiers know it ain't over until the clock strikes zero.

Perhaps Hillary will become an honorary Manning (though I think they are Republicans, but that might be just a predilection for flags.)

by hctb on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 10:48:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Is The Obama Inevitability Campaign Backfiring (2.00 / 1)

The Patriots were the prohibitive favorites going in. Not exactly the Obama of this analogy...and there's a HUGE difference between going into the 4th quarter of a game up 35 and going into it up 7-3. But nice Hail Mary.

by Jay R on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 11:20:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Is The Obama Inevitability Campaign Backfiring (none / 0)

You ignored the first segment of his example. He was referring to the '06 AFC title game, where 3.5 point favorite Indy overcame a 21-3 deficit to the Patriots late in the second quarter to pull it out 38-34.

And that's not a terrible reference in terms of odds. When NE led 21-3 its win expectancy on the market sites was roughly the same as Obama's now, above 80%. In contrast, your 35 point late 4th quarter gap is absurdly high. That's an out price, and Obama is hardly an out price.

The comparisons fail in terms of time and variables. Obama's lead at this point is actually more decisive than the 80/20 indication on market sites. Put everything in a vacuum and obviously he's more than 80/20. But unlike a football game where everything will unfold in front of you in a half hour or so, more or less antiseptic, there are exponentially more variables in several months of political fray.

That's the same principle on future wagers. Tiger Woods, for example, is about even money to win the '08 Masters. The damn thing is two weeks away so almost every pratfall has been avoided.. When prices are set months in advance obviously the astute speculators won't jump on low odds when Tiger could break an ankle in a freak accident, or be off his best form heading to Augusta. You get better odds early but must avoid some annoying months/weeks, and that's similar to Obama right now.

by Gary Kilbride on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 12:44:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Is The Obama Inevitability Campaign Backfiring (2.00 / 1)

Not the same thing. In sports, a team in that position has the ability to win at any time based entirely on their own strategy and skill. There is a degree of luck involved, but there is a reason that comebacks are fairly routine and scores go back and forth in every single game.

Politics don't work like that. Hillary can't just hit a home run and win this thing. It's not in her control, it's in the hands of the fans.

If you're being chased by an angry bull and then you notice you're also being chased by a swarm of bees, it doesn't really change things. Just keep on running.

by vcalzone on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 09:19:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Is The Obama Inevitability Campaign Backfiring (none / 0)

Oh, you had to bring up the AFC title game too.. ouch. Pats fan here. With no faith in inevitability trains, for sure! [I hope those guys can maybe enjoy playing football again? I guess that's not the Belichick way..]

by daria g on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 02:58:39 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Is The Obama Inevitability Campaign Backfiring (none / 0)

How's it similar??? What? Manning was telling a bunch of desperate lies while Tom Brady was spreading a message of hope. then suddenly video tapes of his pastor came out and fox news replayed them over and over. Nonetheless, his poll numbers rebounded quickly back to the levels they were before the tapes?

by itsobamastupid on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 03:40:02 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Is The Obama Inevitability Campaign Backfiring (2.00 / 1)

Field goals do not matter now. It's hail mary time and it will take more than one, many more than one.

by Tunk on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 10:57:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Up by 35, my ass (2.00 / 7)

Hey. You Obama folks need to LEARN TO DO THE MATH! (Pardon the shouting, but I'm half-deaf from being shouted at about the math so long. . . .)

According to CNN:

Obama 1625 delegates
Clinton 1486 delegates

Multiply each of those number by .014, which is a number I pulled out of my ass to get a footbally-sounding score--my point remains the same whatever number you choose--and the score is:

Obama 23, Clinton 21

What point in the game are we at? Well, you could go by time, since we are currently about 2-2/3 months from Iowa and 2-1/3 months from whatever the last state is (I disremember but I do recall it's about June 7). In that case there's about 10 minutes left in the 3rd quarter.

Or go by the number of states left, 10 out of 50, and that gives you 12 minutes left in the 4th quarter. Count Florida and Michigan and there's about 14:30 left in the 4th quarter. Throw in the undecided SDs and we're indubitably back in the 3rd quarter.

So, down 23-21 with at least 12 minutes left, whaddaya do, quit? I'll tell you one GD thing, if my candidate wanted to frickin QUIT in a situation like this, she sure wouldn't be my candidate. Quittin' time it absolutely is not.

by Trickster on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 11:21:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Up by 35, my ass (2.00 / 2)

and except for the fact that there are only a few opportunities left for Hillary to make a play, and that there is essentially no way short of a major, MAJOR, oh-my-god-he-killed-a-baby-during-a-gay- orgy-with-Spitzer scandal, you need to adjust your projection to fit with the realities of the situation. If you want to think of it as the 3rd quarter (given that based on the DELEGATES REMAINING, which is a much more sensible measure than months elapsed, there's about 13 minutes and change left in play, that's a bit generous) that's fine, but touchdowns now only count for about .25 points, and she has bad field position for scoring 9 unanswered. The deficit is just too great. In politics as in war, the greatest leaders are frequently the ones who know how to leave a fight, and live to fight. Right now, she could end up the Senate Majority Leader (which is I think the actual message Leahy was conveying with his remarks--a subtle offer of a leadership post), the presumptive 2012 nominee if Obama loses, or even a viable 2016 nominee if he wins (she'd still be younger than McCain is now, and would have gained leadership experience and possibly executive experience if she ran for NY Gov in the interim). I understand the glorious myth of Thermopoli and all that, but what exactly does your Leonidas expect to gain by fighting to the last in this battle?

by Jay R on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 11:32:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Let's abandon the football analogy (2.00 / 4)

Because it's not a football game. I just went with it in that first post to put the stomp-down on another overwrought demand for Clinton to quit, which that most assuredly was.

Here's the real argument: the future is the future. We are a long, long way short of 2025 for either candidate. The 700+ superdelegates can vote any which way they please depending on the run of news and momentum over the next few months. There are nearly 600 delegates left to be chosen in primaries. The fate of Florida and Michigan is totally up in the air.

You have NO IDEA what is going to happen in the world over the next 3-5 months; one thing, though, that is likely to happen--it would be certain to happen but for a certain in-the-bag aspect to much of the MSM--is the continued vetting of Obama, a process that has much unfolding to do. Look at what has happened to his favorables over the last month; can he survive if that bleeding continues?

Win North Carolina and Indiana and then it's over. Or make PA close, IN a toss-up and win NC by double-digits, and then it's over. Otherwise, there's plenty of reason to continue.

Listen. If it were really over, it would be obvious to everybody, and you would only need to say it a time or two, not every goddam day for weeks on end. It's really getting tiresome, because the not-so-sub-rosa message is that Clinton supporters are either too stupid to understand reality or too selfish to care about the impact of their actions.

So i'm getting damn tired of hearing about it. Respectfully, please shut up about this.

by Trickster on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 11:48:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Amen (none / 0)

If it's so damned inevitable, why the panic?

Let the process play out.

by OtherLisa on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 11:53:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Amen (none / 0)

Let's not be disingenuous here.
Assuming it is inevitable, then there's a very good reason (assuming one's chief concern is a Democratic victory) for not wishing to simply "Let the process play out." and you well know it; or if you don't, you must be one of the very few people posting here who lack the insight to have figured it out.

by greeseyparrot on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 10:08:17 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Let's abandon the football analogy (none / 0)

Trickster--fair enough. you establish some reasonable thresholds for whether Clinton remains viable. I agree that if Obama is the presumed nominee he should win NC and IN. I think he will and I hope he will but if he doesn't she has a rationale to stay in.

by wasder on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 12:15:00 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Let's abandon the football analogy (none / 0)

Neither candidate can win via the primaries. This is a fact. SDs will decide.

by nellre on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 01:25:23 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Let's abandon the football analogy (2.00 / 1)

Respectfully, no. I don't think the sub-rosa is that you're too selfish to care, but that the only strategy through which Clinton can maintain the veneer of viability is to bank on Obama's implosion. The problem is that provides a clear incentive for her and her surrogates to promote such an implosion.

Vetting is good, but once a fact about a candidate is out and the other candidate tries to continually use it to denigrate or impugn the other candidate, you've passed vetting and entered smearing. What Hillary did with Richard Mellon Scaife wasn't vetting--it was smearing. She has no other strategy left than to smear.

If that's how you want us to finish the nominating contest and move into the general--with an arsenal of negative attacks from Democrats ready-to-use in McCain's media shop--then that's fine. I don't think that's selfish, but I do think it's incredibly short-sighted. But if what Hillary and her surrogates say and do now becomes the vehicle through which McCain attacks Obama in the general, then I'll consider that a net loss for the party.

by Jay R on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 12:47:59 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Let's abandon the football analogy (none / 0)

Obama has spent the entire campaign smearing Hillary and she's been the good Dem. She's been accused of racism and all sorts nasty stuff that has nothing to do with anything she's done. There's Obama using a Drudge story, and a Novak column against her. I say she should clobber him with every bit of mud she's got - I've never seen a Dem asking for it like Obama.

I'm proud of hillary and the campaign she's run - not perfect but at least not nearly as ugly and futile as Obama's.

She has to stay in the race because a lot of us won't vote for president if she's forced out.

by Little Otter on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 02:33:46 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Let's abandon the football analogy (2.00 / 2)

Soo.... She's not responsible for anything she's been accused of, and Obama is 100% responsible for everything he's been accused of. Are you 5 or something? Do you see the world in those kinds of black and white terms? And are you really going to ignore the long history of dirty campaigning on the part of Hillary's people?

Don't know what you're going to do if she stays out, but don't pretend it's out of your hands like you're Pontius Pilate, that's all on you. All the consequences that occur from another Republican administration, that blood is on your hands.

If you're being chased by an angry bull and then you notice you're also being chased by a swarm of bees, it doesn't really change things. Just keep on running.

by vcalzone on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 09:24:06 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Let's abandon the football analogy (2.00 / 2)

please tell me you don't honestly believe this.

and if she's not smeared him in any way, and she's been the "good dem" then why do you propose she clobber him with every bit of mud she's got?

your reality needs some tweaking.

by alex100 on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 10:03:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Up by 35, my ass (none / 0)

And this is interesting: Latecomers get more delegate sway Didn't know about this.

by fredster on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 02:51:35 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Trickster's Football Analogy (2.00 / 1)

Trickster - Here's the problem. In football, you can throw a long pass and pick up 7 points in a few seconds. Then you can recover a fumbled kickoff and do it again, and so on. In baseball, you can score 8 runs with two outs in the bottom of the 9th.

But the democrats have set up their system in a way that rules out Hail Mary passes and bases loaded grand slams. If a narrow victory in a primary gave you all the delegates, Hillary could run the table, but just winning, even by 10% or 20%, doesn't net enough delegates to turn it around.

That's why Hillary looked so inevitable in 2007. She had such big leads in the Super Tuesday states that she would have had an insurmountable lead, just as Obama does now.

And Hillary didn't really screw up either. In all those early debates, she just sat back and looked presidential while everyone else struggled to seem relevant.

What happened was that Obama had a phenomenal game plan. He had everything mapped out - setting up the organization in each state, the internet fund-raising, how to work the caucuses ... all of that. His campaign has been like google - smart, clean, and a step ahead.

That's why Obama would make such a phenomenal president - he's really good at accomplishing complex goals. He's really good at thinking ahead. And the best thing is that's he's on our side, so why don't we be on his side too and we can start to undo some of the damage that's been done in the last 30 years since Reagan/Bush/Clinton/Bush decided to give our country away to a bunch of corrupt corporations?

McCain housing policy shaped by lobbyist.

by obsessed on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 03:13:36 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I'm just not on the field here (none / 0)

In this game where there's some entity called a "Reagan/Bush/Clinton/Bush." In my world that grouping would only be found at a funeral.

by Trickster on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 05:58:46 AM EST
[ Parent ]

do you have health insurance? (none / 0)

The rapid increases actually got worse from 92-2000, as did many other corporate deregulation atrocities.

What I'm saying is that the war on the middle class has continued unabated under Reagan, Bush, Clinton and Bush - it's been a corporate feeding frenzy throughout and I have little faith than another Clinton is going to stop the trend. Don't get me wrong - I'll the first one in line to vote for her instead of McCain for a whole host of important reasons, but there's no doubt in my mind that when it comes to the corporations versus us, she's with them, not us.

I don't care what her "plan" says - I care what she did when she was in power. The proof is in the pudding.

POLL: Do you mydd folks:

1. not listen to Thom Hartmann?

listen but don't agree?
don't remember getting screwed by corporate deregulation from 1992 to 2000?
still live with your parents?

McCain housing policy shaped by lobbyist.

by obsessed on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 08:03:39 AM EST
[ Parent ]

What was it you didn't like? (2.00 / 1)

The peace or the prosperity?

Did you not like it when America was respected abroad? Did you just hate it when Clinton got a 10-minute standing ovation when he spoke at the United Nations?

Or was it the longest peacetime expansion since WWII? The affordable homes? Historically low unemployment figures? Dramatic income gains cutting across all levels of income, and not just for the rich? Highest median income ever, measured for inflation? The 22 million new jobs, more than Reagan and both Bushes all combined over their five terms? Balancing the budget sure sucked, didn't it? The 26% reduction in child poverty, that was terrible, right? The Family and Medical Leave Act, know about that? If you have a job, your right to take time off when you or a family member is sick instead of getting fired, that's just awful, isn't it? Biggest education-spending increases since the 60s, you didn't like that? The Brady Bill? Assault-weapon ban? Stopping genocide in eastern Europe? Lastig peace in the centuries-old conflict in Northern Ireland? Almost achieving peace in the Middle East and only failing because the clock ran out on him?

As for deregulation, the worst deregulation of the entire Clinton Presidency was the Private Securities Investors Litigation Reform Act of 1995, which was the only bill of his entire Presidency that was passed over his veto.

To me, when you lump Clinton in with those Republican Presidents, that's just lunacy. His policies and his results were starkly different. The government ran like a spinning top under his hand because, unlike Republican Presidents, he actually believed in government and troubled himself to study methods for running it more efficiently.

Back to foreign policy, the subject of this diary, and I'll end with a couple of appraisals of Clinton the peace-maker, from heads of foreign goverments with whom Clinton negotiated toward Mid-East peace:

Benjamin Netanyahu: But I am today brimming with some confidence--and not overconfidence--simply because we have overcome tremendous challenges and achieved success for both sides--not at the expense of one side and the benefit of the other, but success and advantage and progress for both sides. And that fills me with the confidence that we are able to tackle the larger challenges that still await us and that still await our two peoples.

There are so many people that I could thank in the American delegation. It's a wonderful one, headed by the Secretary of State and Sandy Berger and George Tenet and the team that was there--Dennis and Gamal--(laughter)--a provider of cigars--(laughter)--and good humor--and so many others.

But I want to especially thank President Clinton. He is--if I can borrow a cliche--he is a warrior for peace. I mean, he doesn't stop. He has this ability to maintain a tireless pace and to nudge and prod and suggest. and use a nimble and flexible mind to truly explore the possibilities of both sides, and never just of one side. That is a great gift, I think a precious and unique one. And it served us well.

King Hussein of Jordan: Mr. President, I have had the privilege of being a friend of the United States and Presidents since late President Eisenhower. Throughout all the years that have passed, I have kept in touch. But on the subject of peace, the peace we are seeking, I have never--with all due respect and all the affection that I held for your predecessors--have known someone with your dedication, clear-headedness, focus and determination to help resolve this issue in the best possible way. (Applause.)

Mr. President, permit me to say what I feel--I was mentioning it more than once in the last few days. You have the tolerance and the patience of Job, and you are the subject of our admiration and respect. And we hope that you will be with us as we see greater successes and as we help our brethren and our friends move ahead towards a better tomorrow.

by Trickster on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 03:02:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What was it you didn't like? (none / 0)

That was a really great reply - much better than the original post - and one which should convince any Obama supporter to support Hillary over McCain if it comes to that. I was already convinced - as I said - but you've inspired me to be more passionately convinced.

You've done an excellent job of explaining how Clinton was different and better than Reagan and the Bushes. However, you've failed to address the fundamental and endemic ways in which the Clintons are not different and better than their 3 illustrious corporation-friendly colleagues.

POINT BY POINT

- I liked the peace. The prosperity ... not so much. My stock portfolio prospered, but the cost of living went through the freaking roof. And don't cite me the inflation numbers. I'm not interested in the government's measure of inflation. I happen to live in this country - inflation is my native language and I understand it intimately. My health insurance went from about $100/month to about $500/month. The cost of food, housing, services and non-Chinese goods went up by many orders of magnitude. It become nearly impossible for any young person to ever buy a house (without inheriting one) or to go to college (without going deeply into debt). The cost of what I had to pay to every deregulated industry skyrocketed - utilities, telephone, cable, banking, etc. Then there was NAFTA.

-"Affordable Housing". I live in California. You obviously don't. The cost of renting or buying more than tripled under Clinton. It became impossible for anyone without an inheritance or a 6-figure salary to buy a house.

-Middle East peace talks. Like Hillary's health care initiative, the proof is in the pudding.

-Deregulation. My friend, you have no idea. You really need to study Thom Hartmann. He has a radio show, a website and a number of great books that - based on what you've written above - will absolutely and conclusively change your entire outlook on politics and economics. I've mentioned Hartmann various times as troll-bait and I've been pleased and relieved that so far, no one on mydd.com has tried to make a Clinton versus Hartmann argument. Unless you're a troll, there's none to be made. Hartmann's indictment of corporate deregulation is deeply and profoundly devastating.

-Cuba. Clinton signed the horrendous Helms-Burton act - tragic.

In summary, the Clintons are much better than the Republicans, but when push comes to shove, they're fundamentally aligned with the corporations, not the middle class. You have my vote for Hillary should she be nominated, but you haven't explained to my satisfaction why you're so passionate about a candidate who has proven by example and experience to fail to fight on our side against the corporations, and to fail so totally in the cases where she did appear to take up the fight.

TRICKSTER: Let's be fair. I am absolutely livid at Hillary Clinton right now but I give you my solemn oath that I will vote for her if she's the nominee. In return, I ask you to read Thom Hartmann with an open mind.

McCain housing policy shaped by lobbyist.

by obsessed on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 04:31:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Up by 35, my ass (none / 0)

Up by 35? More like up by 65. The proportional awarding of delegates coupled with the awarding of extra delegates to Democratic congressional districts will hurt Clinton if she wins, as expected, in Pennsylvania.

The only rule applicable to all contests this cycle - primary and caucus - is "don't get blown out." Obama lost Ohio by ten but Hillary's edge in delegates was not signifiantly more than Obama's. All Obama needs in Pennsylvania is something just above 40% to mitigate the awarding of delegates. If he wins in the cities, which has been typical, he will often pick up an extra delegate in Dem congressional districts.

The real problem for the Clinton campaign is that they failed to put enough boots on the ground in some of the earlier states. Her campaign should have invested enough to keep her in the low 40's in states Obama was going to win. I mostly blame her advisers for a mistake of that magnitude even though the buck technically stops with her.

by Shiloh on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 08:24:11 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Up by 35, my ass (none / 0)

Which would be fine if we're talking about football, but we aren't. When you score a touchdown, the other team doesn't get 5 or 6 points, too, for putting up a good defense.

The very same structure that makes the number differential slight in percentage terms is the same one that makes it so hard to catch up.

If we gave New York, California, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Arkansas, Tennessee, Oklahoma, and Ohio -- Clinton's 8 biggest delegate margins -- another set of delegates to give out on top of the first one, she'd STILL be behind.

by Rorgg on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 08:27:50 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Up by 35, my ass (none / 0)

I believe you/we are using the wrong sports analogy to talk about this race. I think this is more like Bowling in that you know when you've won when the game is not over.

Now in this case, Hillary still has a mathematical shot but it would be like being in the 7th frame and needed to STRIKE OUT the rest of the frames while Obama leaves his frames open with no spares. Is it possible? Yes. It is probable? No.

I believe that Obama's win in NC will cancel out PA because his win there will be larger than Clinton's win in PA. Indiana will be close and Obama has a good chance of winning it but so does Clinton.

The rest of the states are small and they will probably split them in terms of wins so we end up were we are right now. That is why people are calling for Clinton to bow out before we all lose.

My $0.001 - ouch inflation hurts.

Obama 08!

by comingawakening on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 02:08:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Is The Obama Inevitability Campaign Backfiring (none / 0)

Unlikely? Sure. But that doesn't mean you end the game two minutes early.

by Blue Jean on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 12:03:14 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Is The Obama Inevitability Campaign Backfiring (none / 0)

Usually what it means is that you let the second and third stringers get some game time. You let the first string rest for the next fight, and Majority Leader Clinton will have a hell of a lot of fights ahead if we're going to fix the mess from 8 years of neglect.

by Jay R on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 12:49:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]

A primary is not a football game. (none / 0)

If one must look to a game analogy, think of cribbage.

Does anyone imagine if the situation were reversed (in terms of lead in the popular vote, states won, and pledged delegates) that Team Clinton wouldn't be calling for her opponent to drop out "for the good of the party?"

And what of the Clinton campaign's assertion a while back that she would have the nomination sewn up by February 5th? By the same logic we're hearing now, John Edwards should have stayed in the race because dropping out when he did denies the right of those in North Carolina to have their voices heard.

by lucky monkey on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 01:07:05 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Is The Obama Inevitability Campaign Backfiring (1.75 / 4)

Well, Obama is running the campaign of Hope - Hope that your opponents quits.

If Obama is the nominee, I expect that by November, Obamaniacs will be writing diaries saying that Obama has already won the GE & that McCain should quit.

People who have drunk the Kool-Aid are in a totally different world than the rest of us.

by gaf on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 07:08:00 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Is The Obama Inevitability Campaign Backfiring (none / 0)

Actually there is and here it is:

Without coattails.....

by Pericles on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 05:28:21 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Is The Obama Inevitability Campaign Backfiring (none / 0)

In any case, isn't it time to finish this? The final result seems clear so why postpone the inevitable?

Is that really what you want? Well, ok, then, let's look at the numbers (via The Green Papers):

http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P08/D.phtm l

If you look at the "alternative soft totals", which include FL and MI - which we have to, or else we lose both those states in the GE, and thereby lose to McCain - you'll see Hillary is ahead by 1 delegate.

The popular vote totals at the left don't include them, however, so we have to add 615,000 net votes to Hillary, putting her over 500,000 votes ahead at this point.

Hillary is heavily favored to win PA (by 15, PR (by 35 - winner take all), WV (by 30), and KY (by 15), and is statistically tied in OR and IN; given this, we can put her an (estimated) additional 100+ delegates and 1 million+ votes ahead after these primaries.

So I ask you again: are you SURE you want Hillary to be declared the winner RIGHT NOW?

by SergeiRostov on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 12:02:12 AM EST
[ Parent ]

The Obama campaign and ... (2.00 / 7)

... their surrogates and supporters were hoping for a knockout blow to get Senator Clinton out of the race. It didn't work. Obama will look all the weaker when he starts losing upcoming primaries, especially Pennsylvania. Furthermore Hillary Clinton is impressing a lot of people with her toughness. Could Obama withstand the onslaught that has been heaped on Hillary? Not a chance. He is still trying to explain Reverend Wright. Obama is no match for the Republican attack machine.

by sinjin777 on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 10:26:28 PM EST

Re: The Obama campaign and ... (2.00 / 4)

Yeah, that Obama is in trouble.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/105814/Gallup -Daily-Obama-Back-Into-Lead-Democratic-R ace.aspx
"Obama's current 8-point advantage ties his largest lead of the Gallup Poll Daily tracking program, along with a 50% to 42% showing in Feb. 28-March 1 polling. Obama clearly has weathered the Wright storm, while the dark clouds have shifted to Clinton over whether she has exaggerated her foreign policy credentials. This week she has had to defend her repeated claim that she came under sniper fire while visiting Bosnia as first lady, which news video clearly disputed."

We care about politics because we know politics matters for people's lives and opportunities.

by politicsmatters on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 10:35:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Obama campaign and ... (2.00 / 1)

noise.
http://www.pollster.com/blogs/4645_plus_ or_minus_3.php

by hctb on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 10:52:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Obama campaign and ... (none / 0)

You might be right. Let's see if Obama can sustain such a lead. You'd think the Wednesday and Thursday number have to be very strong for him to jump ahead each day so much.

We care about politics because we know politics matters for people's lives and opportunities.

by politicsmatters on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 11:08:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Obama campaign and ... (none / 0)

or the bounce Clinton got from the March 5 contests are dropping out of th sample.

by hctb on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 11:12:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Obama campaign and ... (none / 0)

What bounce?

We care about politics because we know politics matters for people's lives and opportunities.

by politicsmatters on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 12:52:03 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Obama campaign and ... (none / 0)

Just curious but have any of you folks heard about that thing...you know....it's called the....

Electoral College?

Jes askin' is all.....

by Pericles on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 05:30:28 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Obama campaign and ... (2.00 / 1)

Yes, I even wanted to go to one. But parents couldn't afford it.

by gaf on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 07:10:49 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Obama campaign and ... (none / 0)

She is knocking herself out. Have you not noticed? She's really wants to help our great country but she fell and hit her head on the kitchen sink and has never been the same since.

by Tunk on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 11:05:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Obama campaign and ... (none / 0)

"Obama will look weaker"

That's exactly the problem. She alweays has had the ability to win some states, but she is now in the position where states don't matter, unless she runs the table scoring an average of around 70%. Obama will not be overturned by supers if he maintains his lead, but she will have hurt his campaign in the general - by ramping up his negatives (along with her own), but spending money and by letting McCain have a clear field.

For the good of the party she should show some class. If the only way she can win is to have the superdelegates overturn a six-month cross-country result then she has to figure out that either she will lose and hurt the party or win and destroy the party.

by Shiloh on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 08:31:56 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Is The Obama Inevitability Campaign Backfiring (2.00 / 3)

Once again Clinton will "win" the media narrative while Obama wins more delegates.

by dmc2 on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 10:29:45 PM EST

Re: Is The Obama Inevitability Campaign Backfiring (2.00 / 3)

National polls (Pew and Gallop) show Obama pulling significantly ahead. Hillary also sinking below 20 at Intrade. My wife said that on the View today, two of the woman hosts said they have switched from supporting Clinton to supporting Obama.

by xtrarich on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 10:39:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Intrade anyone? (2.00 / 0)

Since the Clinton supporters have such insight into reality I am sure they are putting their money where their mouth is and cashing in assets to bet at Intrade and make a fortune. If they are not then its time to face reality and stop following Clinton over the cliff. A lot of reputations are being ruined by steadfastly supporting the 2008 version of Nader.

by ImpeachBushCheney on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 02:07:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]

20 in Intrade (none / 0)

That means the money thinks she has a 20% chance. Aren't you guys saying there's no realistic possibility at all? Time to just quit?

I don't quit on a 20% chance to make the world a better place. Because I don't consider the prospect of a Clinton Presidency vs an Obama--or McCain--Presidency just two sides of a coin. I think Clinton's the most electable and I think she would be a much better President.

Besides, your bluffing your butt off. If it was really quitting time, you wouldn't need to say it. People aren't stupid.

by Trickster on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 06:02:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Know your Numbers (none / 0)

So how much money did you put into your Intrade account to bet on Clinton? Can I be the counterparty?

Just so you understand the "math" at Intrade. There is a bet that the U.S. will go into recession in 2008. That is at 70% even though most economists believe we are already in a recession and just need to tally up the numbers to see how bad it is. Heck, there's only a 95% chance McCain will be the Republican nominee and a 4% chance that Gore will be the Democrat.

To put it another way, there is only a slightly better chance that pigs will fly than that Hillary will win the nomination.

by zadura on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 02:48:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Sorry, that's just horseshit (none / 0)

If it were really true, you wouldn't have to be saying it constantly, like a mantra, for weeks. It would be obvious. It's not. There are many, many ways for Clinton to win.

And yes, I have some money on her at Intrade.

Listen to what Howard Dean said yesterday. His interest is in insuring a fair end-game so that whoever loses doesn't feel cheated by the process. This may seem incredible to you, but Clinton has tens of millions of die-hard adherents. Muscle her out of the race without letting it become actually apparent that she's losing, and you will lose millions of general election votes, because people harden against you when they take things personally.

I don't see why I have to make this same argument day after day after day against you goddam buttinskies. If you want to influence somebody's campaign, influence your own candidate's. We Clintonites do not take your advice as being offered in good faith. We take it as a brazen attempt to avoid a drubbing in Pennsylvania that might turn things around.

by Trickster on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 03:18:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Sorry, that's just horseshit (none / 0)

I will bet you $100,000 on an uneven pool that Barack will be the Democratic candidate for President in 2008. That is, I will put in $80k and you put in $20k. Whoever wins gets the whole pool. I offer this to anybody else as well.

No jokes. No internet smokescreens. Just two people making a simple bet based on their sense of the odds.

by zadura on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 05:02:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Fine (none / 0)

As long as it's monopoly money. The only time I've ever even seen $100K was under circumstances i'd rather not discuss.

by Trickster on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 06:34:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Fine (none / 0)

OK, how about $100. Same odds and same split.

by zadura on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 07:17:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Fine (none / 0)

I'd rather not getting into divulging my ID to somebody I don't know--no offense, please, I'm just cautious about internet stuff--when I can bet on my own without doing that. I've already sunk a little money into this--within the last 2 weeks, let me add--and I don't have an infinite limit on how much I want to put in. Hillary just had a tough week in the press and that doesn't make me want to up my stake over what it was this time last week.

Thanks for the offer, though. It's a fair offer.

by Trickster on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 07:37:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Is The Obama Inevitability Campaign Backfiring (2.00 / 1)

Since when does enthusiastic receptions from one's supporters mean all that much? A friend of mine was at the last rally Edwards held, the night before he dropped out. Edwards sounded energized, said nothing about dropping out, and the crowd was fired up.

We care about politics because we know politics matters for people's lives and opportunities.

by politicsmatters on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 10:36:31 PM EST

Re: Is The Obama Inevitability Campaign Backfiring (2.00 / 2)

Candidates always say this until the moment they actually do drop out. Look at Romney - it was "I am in this until the bitter end!" and then two days later he dropped out. The candidates have to do that while they do one last round of fund raising so they can pay off their campaign debt. Who is going to give them money if they know they are about to drop out of the race?

I always wonder that - wouldn't you have been really angry if you had been the last person who had given money to Romney and an hour later he dropped out? I'd have wanted my money back. And it wasn't like he was poor to begin with. Look how much money he loaned his own campaign.

by JackieinCA on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 03:28:08 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Is The Obama Inevitability Campaign Backfiring (none / 0)

Therein lies the difference with Hillary. When Hillary says she's staying in and ready to fight for us, I believe her. I believe and trust her completely. She is not a quitter. It broke my heart when that wimp assed Kerry threw in the towel a day after we voted in 04.
Loser.
That, my fellow Americans, is certainly NOT Hillary.
She is a fighter... She fights for US. That is the other difference. She is in this race for US not herself. Anyone who refutes that needs to do some serious soul searching.

Electoral college breakdown proves Obama can not win in November. McCain will definitely be the POTUS #44 only if he runs against Obama. Hillary is the only candidate running that is numerically guaranteed to win in NOV.
http://www.surveyusa.com/index.php/2008/ 03/06/electoral-math-as-of-030608-clinto n-276-mccain-262/

by naturesway on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 12:17:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Is The Obama Inevitability Campaign Backfiring (none / 0)

first nothing is guaranteed in november. just ask john kerry right down to the exit polls.

next did you actually read the link you posted. you posted the hillary/mccain matchup but had you clicked the link tot he obama match up you would see he would get more electoral votes against mcain than hilalry would.let me help you

http://www.surveyusa.com/index.php/2008/ 03/06/electoral-math-as-of-030608-clinto n-276-mccain-262/
Clinton 276, McCain 262

http://www.surveyusa.com/index.php/2008/ 03/06/electoral-math-as-of-030608-obama- 280-mccain-258/
Obama 280, McCain 258

and this was on march 6th. since than both hillary and obama have dropped in head to head polls with mccain. yesterday he even released his first general election tv ad. every time a nomination is contested that party loses in november.

so here we are with hillary and no path to the pledge delegate lead. her only chance to win the nomination is to ruin obama and they both have suffered so far in polls.

by Leftyy2k4 on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 01:00:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Joke..who is the joke on? (1.40 / 5)

Gimmie a break. The Clinton Campaign is in the death throes but it still could be painful. The real question is does she have a future in Democratic politics? After she botched health care for a generation of Americans I hope the answer is no. Only John McCain is lauugning.

by howardpark on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 10:36:41 PM EST

Death throes (2.00 / 7)

Haven't we been hearing this for months now?

by joanneleon on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 11:05:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Death throes (2.00 / 1)

For about two months, actually. That's how long it took for her to completely throw away her position as the frontrunner. You can't tell me you aren't disappointed in the people running her campaign.

If you're being chased by an angry bull and then you notice you're also being chased by a swarm of bees, it doesn't really change things. Just keep on running.

by vcalzone on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 11:30:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Death throes (2.00 / 2)

I'm disappointed in my fellow "progressives" and "liberals" and the way they have treated her. I expected the media to pile on, but crazy me, I also thought the "liberal" blogosphere would fight the media conventional wisdom instead of going right along with it.

by daria g on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 03:09:53 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Death throes (none / 0)

So it's a vast left-wing conspiracy?

by Shaun Appleby on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 03:17:45 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Death throes (none / 0)

remember bill and his philandering was a right wing conspiracy right up till the blue dress.

yes the wife of the last democratic president has been battered by the party? why cause they didn't vote for her? what a joke.

by Leftyy2k4 on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 01:03:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Death throes (none / 0)

Congratulations on your wit.

by daria g on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 02:56:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Death throes (none / 0)

No we've been hearing it for YEARS about the Iraq "insurgents".

by Justwords on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 12:08:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Is The Obama Inevitability Campaign Backfiring (2.00 / 5)

I'm giving $25 to Hillary right now. Who's with me?

by Turnpike Kid on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 10:37:23 PM EST

Re: Is The Obama Inevitability Campaign Backfiring (none / 0)

$50 for Obama and $100 for the grassroots and why doesn't she have any operation to get volunteers up to Pennsylvania? Is it a significant state? How much does she have to win by?

by howardpark on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 10:43:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Is The Obama Inevitability Campaign Backfiring (2.00 / 1)

She's pretty broke right now and owes over $9 million to vendors.

We care about politics because we know politics matters for people's lives and opportunities.

by politicsmatters on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 10:47:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Is The Obama Inevitability Campaign Backfiring (none / 0)

go to the website--it is right there on the front page. Same with NC.

by hctb on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 10:50:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Is The Obama Inevitability Campaign Backfiring (2.00 / 3)

She's getting volunteers in Pennsylvania and others from nearby states like NJ.

by joanneleon on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 11:08:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Is The Obama Inevitability Campaign Backfiring (none / 0)

And from New York. I'm one of them. Friends are flying to York and Philadelphia from California. They're so swamped with volunteers from out of state at the Philadelphia headquarters they added a staff person just to handle those contacts.

Tell it like it is, Todd.

On to the Convention Floor!

by oh puhleeze on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 02:36:37 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Is The Obama Inevitability Campaign Backfiring (2.00 / 3)

Pardon me but she DOES have an operation to get volunteers here to Pennsylvania. As one of them, I ought to know.

by cuppajoe on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 11:19:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Is The Obama Inevitability Campaign Backfiring (none / 0)

Look before you type. okay?
http://hillaryclinton.com/action/travel/ ?sc=3

No way. No how. No McCain. . . . . . If you can ship a job to Bangalore India, you can ship a job to Flint Michigan.

by NJ Liberal on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 09:24:26 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Is The Obama Inevitability Campaign Backfiring (none / 0)

I only give to down ticket races but I'm about this close to giving to Obama.

by alex100 on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 10:56:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Is The Obama Inevitability Campaign Backfiring (2.00 / 1)

My spouse and I are giving money to Obama this weekend. We want to make sure we get in the pool from which the campaign will draw to get four people to have dinner with him.
https://donate.barackobama.com/page/cont ribute/dinner7?source=feature_dinner

We care about politics because we know politics matters for people's lives and opportunities.

by politicsmatters on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 10:49:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Is The Obama Inevitability Campaign Backfiring (2.00 / 4)

Inevitability campaign? I'd classify it more like a unity campaign.

by Hesiod Theogeny on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 10:41:32 PM EST

Re: Is The Obama Inevitability Campaign Backfiring (2.00 / 2)

Earth to Todd, come in Todd. You sound like Jerome now. What ever is actually going on, write a diary that states the opposite and then cross your fingers!

by wasder on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 10:44:00 PM EST

Re: Is The Obama Inevitability Campaign Backfiring (2.00 / 1)

Be nice. Todd has been pretty good these past months, considering. Homie is entitled to opine (especially since that's why they pay him the big bucks to begin with).

by Jay R on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 11:37:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Is The Obama Inevitability Campaign Backfiring (2.00 / 1)

Your right. Sorry Todd. You HAVE had some very good diaries recently.

by wasder on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 12:17:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Obama should treat Hillary like Mike Gravel (none / 0)

Just ignore her, and do his own thing.

Start focusing n John McCain and act like you are the nominee. If Hillary wants to keep campaigning to make herself feel better, let her. She's lost.

by Hesiod Theogeny on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 10:45:27 PM EST

Re: Obama should treat Hillary like Mike Gravel (none / 0)

No, because then she gets to blindside him with everything she's got. Her campaign will be feeding McCain's with information and vice-versa. If they aren't already doing that, they will be.

What she needs to do is realize exactly why she's fallen so far behind and start putting her country before her own ambition. Fight against McCain and do it really hard. Don't just pretend that you can put it off until after winning a nomination. Do it now and do it before he gets too far ahead and has already defined his campaign.

If you're being chased by an angry bull and then you notice you're also being chased by a swarm of bees, it doesn't really change things. Just keep on running.

by vcalzone on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 11:34:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

So you expected her supporters to boo the idea (none / 0)

of her staying in?

John McCain supports privatizing Social Security.

by Travis Stark on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 10:46:50 PM EST

Re: Is The Obama Inevitability Campaign Backfiring (none / 0)

and asking for 3million by monday and getting it are different things

by wasder on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 10:48:13 PM EST

Re: Is The Obama Inevitability Campaign Backfiring (2.00 / 1)

Thank you! Just donated to Hillary again.

On to the Convention Floor!

by oh puhleeze on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 02:31:50 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Is The Obama Inevitability Campaign Backfiring (none / 0)

yup. And it also signals she's running short of money to be making a drive.

obama doesn't even have to ask.

by alex100 on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 10:51:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Is The Obama Inevitability Campaign Backfiring (2.00 / 3)

Obama IS inevitable.

The inevitability campaign that backfired is the Hillary campaign that promoted the concept of inevitability as a campaign strategy. And we all know how effective that strategy proved to be.

by xtrarich on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 10:49:11 PM EST

Re: Is The Obama Inevitability Campaign Backfiring (none / 0)

Ridiculous- her campaign never floated the idea of her "inevitability"- the media did. And of course the netroots.

by skohayes on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 09:10:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Is The Obama Inevitability Campaign Backfiring (2.00 / 1)

i suggest you educate yourself. many times she was asked and she said this will be over on feb 5th.

there was even a interview in dec where she said theres no way she could lose. Even I a undecided at that time shook my head and thought she was right. we all did.

ignoring her own words now and blaming the media is so old.

by Leftyy2k4 on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 01:08:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Is The Obama Inevitability Campaign (2.00 / 1)

I think some of the inevitability talk may be posturing; this is is a very,very close primary after all. However, I know that there are people (myself included) who have held off judgment of who was going to come out the winner but who are now just plain having trouble imagining a scenario where she wins. This is particularly in light of recent polling. I also think he is talking about his economic plans now, well, and this is one of the pieces that I thought was missing from his campaign before.

I would be very interested in some reporting from his bus tour. I'm not sure how much of an impact that will make in the PA results.

One last thing, reports from the candidates' rallies and get-togethers are wonderful to read, and I hope people in the states currently preparing for primaries can write in their experiences from both candidates' tours.

by mady on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 10:54:59 PM EST

Re: Is The Obama Inevitability Campaign (2.00 / 1)

You say this is a very, very, very close primary. I have been asking this all over the net, but how is it close?

Hillary won Ohio in what most are calling a decisive victory...yet she only gained 9 delegates out of this screwy proportional system.

Even if she wins PA by 20, using Ohio as the standard, how can she gain more than 20 delegates?

I'm sincerely looking for a way for this to be close...but Obama is like 155 delegates ahead. How on earth can she catch up?

by G Davis on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 12:55:24 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Is The Obama Inevitability Campaign (none / 0)

That is why Chuck Todd on MSNBC says it is really, really unlikely - I think the word he uses is improbable, but not impossible. And Hillary supporters, you have to like him, he said she should stay in the race today:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23846166/

Though I think his reasoning is more that it is making Obama a stronger candidate than that Hillary has a realistic chance of making up the delegates. I am a numbers person. Chuck Todd is MSNBC's numbers guy and besides the fact that everyone in the industry seems to think he is the best at knowing his numbers, he seems to be regarded as being intellectually honest.

He has been saying that she needs to win around 65% of all remaining delegates from here on out to catch up with Obama's delegate count. So in Pennsylvania she would have to win 65 to 35 (20 points, where she is currently up 16 points per Real Clear Politics,) then go on to win NC by 20 points (where Obama is currently up by 12.7 points,) etc, through the rest of the races.

This is why you will now have a bunch of other arguments thrown at you - popular vote, FL/MI, Big States, electoral votes, etc. The fact of the matter is, until Obama wins half plus 1 of all of the delegates - pledged and super, there is always a chance - slim but a chance - of Hillary winning the nomination.

It is why Huckabee stayed in the race on the Republican side until McCain won his half plus 1 of delegates. Huckabee said he was waiting for a miracle. Hillary is waiting for a miracle too. And honestly, I do think it was good Huckabee stayed in until the bitter end. But he was very careful to play the party line. He never praised one of the democrats over McCain (by implication or mistake.) I do think if Hillary stayed in and just watched what she (and Bill, and especially Mark Penn) said then no one would be calling for her to get out of the race. There is just a lot of nervousness in the party due to comments made and who she has been talking to that there is going to be irreparable damage done to our eventual nominee - either because Hillary tears down Obama and makes him unelectable but he is still our nominee, or because Hillary tears down Obama and makes him unelectable and he isn't our nominee, but she so drives up her unfavorable rating to do so that she will becomes unelectable too.

And if that does happen, I think we will see the one scenario where we will be really glad we have super delegates - and the real reason we do have them. If that happens they would, for the good of the party, vote for neither unelectable candidate. That would then mean that neither would win on the 1st ballot and then we really would see some back room deal making going on. I think we would then see some other candidate be put on the 2nd ballot. Gore perhaps, or Edwards who could resume his suspended campaign. It might take a couple of more ballots but they would elect this other candidate.

And for anyone that thinks that this is impossible, it has happened before. The most famous example is the 1924 Democratic convention, where the nominee was elected on the 102nd ballot.

by JackieinCA on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 05:13:29 AM EST
[ Parent ]