4.50pm. CNN calls Texas for Clinton. Her lead is back to 51-48 with 75 per cent reporting.
4.42pm. Still 50-48 in Texas with 69 per cent reporting, but the trend on raw figures is nudging gently back to Cllinton. We also have 5 per cent of the caucuses reporting with Obama leading 56-44; no idea what to make of this.
4.12pm. Only just noticed how great the New York Times’ graphical maps are. Run your pointer over Texas and note how a lot of the big counties in the Obama-voting cities have a very low count.
4.08pm. … and her lead his now back to 50-48 with 63 per cent reporting.
4.08pm. CNN analyst says most of Clinton’s strong areas in Texas are “in”; if Obama’s early 60-40 lead in Houston holds up, it will apparently be enough to put him ahead, although he stresses that won’t definitely happen.
4.02pm. Clinton has gained another point in Texas, leading 51-48 with 58 per cent reporting.
3.27pm. Been away from my post for a bit. Clinton has claimed victory in Ohio and is currently delivering a speech making it very clear she’s not about to withdraw. Clinton leads 50-48 in Texas with 46 per cent reporting.
2.46pm. Now 51 per cent of precincts in Ohio and Clinton’s lead has in fact widened a little, to 57-41.
2.33pm. Clinton has caught up with Obama in Texas with 20 per cent of precincts reporting: now 49-all. Her lead is only narrowing slightly in Ohio, now at 56-42 with 47 per cent reporting.
2.14pm. Clinton still leads 57-41 in Ohio with 35 per cent of precincts reporting. Talk in comments suggests a 50-50 result in Cleveland, which I gather was expected to be good for Obama.
2.08pm. Interviewee on Fox Radio notes that Rhode Island exit polls were way out, pointing to a close result when it has actually been a big win for Clinton.
1.50pm. 21 per cent of precincts in Ohio now reporting and Clinton’s earlier lead is almost intact – now 59-39. Texas count has edged up to 6 per cent and Obama’s earlier lead has steadily been whittled away, now down to 51-49.
1.36pm. Clinton still leads 60-38 in Ohio with 14 per cent of precincts reporting.
1.31pm. Claude in comments points out another factor in Ohio being the extension of voting in some counties where Obama is expected to do well.
1.28pm. CNN calls Rhode Island for Clinton, her first win since Super Tuesday.
1.28pm. Al in comments notes no precincts are in from the Ohio cities of Columbus and Cleveland, the former being an Obama-friendly college town.
1.23pm. Huckabee announcing withdrawal. Clinton leads 60-38 in Ohio with 6 per cent counted, but this is presumably with Clinton-friendly areas reporting.
1.10pm. Fox reports that Mike Huckabee has confirmed he will withdraw, but says there are “conflicting reports”.
1.04pm. Obama campaign reportedly feeling upbeat about Ohio, the bad weather having diminished the turnout from older Democrats who favour Clinton. Fox gives McCain a clean sweep of Texas, Ohio, Vermont and Rhode Island.
1.03pm. McCain by all accounts now has enough delegates to secure the nomination.
1.01pm. Via Kevin Rennie, an explanation of the Texas system from New Republic.
12.45pm. I’ve had my eye off the ball for the last 45 minutes. Obama has an early 56-44 lead in Texas, but these are big city precincts where he is expected to do well. I’m not going to pretend to be on top of the Texan primaries-plus-caucuses system: perhaps somebody who is can provide a brief explanation in comments.
11.55am. Exit polls point to a “tight race” in Rhode Island.
11.40am. CBS News reporting a very high turnout by Hispanics in Texas and low turnout of African-Americans, boding well for Clinton.
11.30am (Australian EST). Polls have just closed in Ohio, and Fox News has immediately called Ohio for John McCain but predicted a close result between Clinton and Obama. Vermont is being called for Obama and McCain.
1,628 Comments
Going to be interesting!
CNN exit polls don’t look good for Obama in Ohio.
Clinton winning females 54-45
And Obama winning males 52-47
Generally more females are voting for each Democratic primary.
2
asanque
yeah, but that’s in the over 55’s! LOL
Obama kills it on the unders.
This live blog from NYTimes follows the counting, but nothing to see yet folks:
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/03/04/live-blogging-tonights-results/index.html?hp
My rudimentary maths skills says that the CNN exit polls point to about a 51-48 Clinton win (although who knows how accurate their polls will be). I think that Obama’s camp would be fairly happy with that result on the basis of polling from 3-4 weeks ago.
Gawd – Hillary must truly LOATHE charismatic men by now.
If it really is ‘close in Ohio’ that would be an amazing result for Obama.
Vermont meanwhile is predictably 58/40 to the Big O after 3%
Umm….that’s 58/40 after 5%
“I’ve got a live thread up,…..”
So, if this blog is live, have all the others shuffled of their mortal cyber-coils to join the choir insisibule with heavenly music courtesy of inter-tubular bells, William?
Brattleboro, Vermont, has voted to pass a resolution to indict GWB and Chaney for crimes against the US Constitutions and instruct its police to arrest them. According to CNN, GWB has never visited Vermont as POTUS. At least they got some sense of humour among the falling leaves of Vermont.
MSNBC has Ohio Clinton 56/42, ‘0%’ reporting…
56-42 to Clinton in early stages in Ohio.
Vermont (10%) 59/39 for Obama
Vermont (11%) 60/38 for Obama
Vermont (12%) 58/40 for Obama
Texas – 58-41 Obama early stages!
Nice early Texas numbers for Obama (58/41)!!
Although they’re maningless at this stage of the count, I think Obama would probably take those results!! That split would do him fine, I think…
Texas (0%) 58/41 for Obama
Texas (0%) 61/39 for Obama!
Tx on CNN – Obama 60/39…
Vermont (15%) 59/39 for Obama
Polls are still open for another 45 minutes in Texas so I’m assuming the counting so far is from the east / least Latino areas?
Ohio – 62-36 Clinton
My calculations of the CNN exit polls give the lead in Ohio to Clinton 52/48, but there were a lot of pre-polls.
Updated Ohio from CNN – Clinton 62/36
Vermont (18%) 59/39 for Obama
Texas primaries closed at 7pm local time (CST), anyone still in line for a ballot can still vote. Caucusing starts at 7.15pm local time.
In Texas they have counted 739000 votes. In Ohio 11000 votes.
And Ohio closed earlier.
What gives?:)
And if Texas has 739000 votes, surely it should be higher then 0%?
Texas 1% – 58/41 for Obama
There was a record number of prepolls in Texas – something like 7% of expected votes I read somewhere.
Asanque, that probably has a lot to do with the make up of Texas producing more early voters than any difference in counting techniques.
Do you guys have a recommendation for the best poll site to check?
Obama is killing Billary in the big booths in Dallas, Houston and Austin by 62/38. It’s looking very good!
Socrates try this one
http://edition.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/dates/index.html#20080304
Swift Kids for Truth on pantsuits: http://www.236.com/video/
The dreadful weather in Ohio will effect the turnout for one of HRC’s more friendly demographics, over 55 Euro-Americans.
Vermont (31%) 59/39 for Obama
Thanks Turning Worm
BTW – note that that is 1% of precincts reporting, not voters. Obama is now leading 56/43 in Texas. Hillary is leading 62/36 in Ohio but on small numbers.
McCain has won Ohio, so that gives hime the Republican race.
The Texas map looks fantastic for Hillary, the big city big booths have come in fast and skew the early results, but if you look outside the big cities it is a sea of Clinton voters. The the districts that haven’t yet been counted yet go for Hillary like their neighbours she’ll get a decent win (in the popular count, it’ll probably end up close to a tie in delegates).
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/county/#TXDEMMAPprimary
39 Obama is the CNN projected winner in Vermont.
It’s all terribly exciting, isn’t it? But nearly every indicator says it will be close. So chances are this will all be meaningless.
IF Obama wins TX And OHIO, there will be pressure on Hillary to bow out. But Hillary has already said she will plow on regardless – is she just bluffing?
I’d hate to see super-delegates decide this thing: better if the Party leaders asked both camps to run a joint ticket.
From http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com:
CNN reporting that Bush will endorse McCain as early as tomorrow if he secures enough delegates for the nomination tonight. And Huckabee may bow out tonight.
Socrates, the site below and its links are pretty good, and HuffPo less so but ok for “problem Poll Bludgers” like us.
http://politicalwire.com/
Whether or not she is going to continue, Hillary would have to say that she was going to so as not to appear weak. So I don’t think we can read too much into her statements until we see numbers.
Adrian, if you look closer at the votes in the rural areas, there’s been less than 500 votes tallied in most counties. A lot of those votes I imagine are from small polling stations and pre polls. Based on opinion polling data from when early voting opened on 19 February, I’m very surprised that Obama was so far ahead.
Speaking of problem polls, check out the usual Diebold-related problems at http://www.bradblog.com/
Socrates
On the CNN site this one gives you the best bird’s eye view
http://edition.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/dates/index.html#20080304
Essex county in Vermont is currently tied 177 votes to 177 votes with 38% reporting. If Obama pulls ahead it looks like he will take all of the counties in the state.
The Huckster to make a statement shortly: and then there was one Republican. Pressure will be on further for the Dems to sort it out soon.
Based on exit polls, Obama camp predicts he will gain a single digit win on delegates in the four primaries today, with Vermont being a bit part.
There are some useful links about the Texa system in my post ‘Deep in the Heart of Texas” at Labor View from Broome. http://laborview.blogspot.com/
Vermont should split 9-6 to Obama from current results.
Thanks Kevin.
Texas 2% – 54/45 for Obama
Clinton fighting back in Tx – 2% in, Obama 54/45
William:
1.04pm. Obama campaign reportedly feeling upbeat about Ohio, the bad weather having diminished the turnout from older Democrats who favour Clinton. Fox gives him a clean sweep of Texas, Ohio, Vermont and Rhode Island.
The front page of Fox gives McCain a clean sweep, but not Obama.
Pretty brave prediction given Hillary is still leading 61-37 in Ohio
Ohio now 2% in, Clinton now 58/40
Sorry, I meant “gives McCain a clean sweep”, obviously. Now corrected.
According to Fox, Edwards is winning Texas with 67% of the vote. Yeah… right.
http://elections.foxnews.com/states/#20080304
Rhode Island, 3%, 51/48 for Clinton
Ohio 2%, 58/40 for Clinton
Rhode Island, 4%, 50/49 for Clinton
Ohio 4%, 59/39 for Clinton
So it seems all eyes are on Texas…
The ‘% counted’ as against the numbers of votes in Texas, is wont to confuse on http://politics.nytimes.com/election-guide/2008/results/states/TX.html and no doubt other sites as well. Thanks to Socrates for explaining the reason (vast numbers of pre-votes).
If just about bang-on a million votes represented 2% of the Democrat primary in that state, then there would be… oh… about 50 million votes to be counted. In a primary in one state. On them kind of demographics, you’d sure like the chances of whoever won Texas in November, becoming the next President!
Reporting in Ohio is painfully slow with no precincts reporting in the major cities of Columbus and Cleveland, or the smaller cities of Cincinnati and Toledo.
Columbus is the biggest university city in the US. Big numbers for Obama there.
Ohio is now 60 to 39 in Clinton’s favour yeeeha!
CNN calls RI for Clinton, breaking a twelve straight losing streak.
Sorry 60 Clinton 38 Obama Hillbilly’s looking good in Ohio!
Clinton closer in Tx – Obama now leads 53/45
Sorry – Clinton closer in Tx – Obama now leads 53/46
Huckleberry is out!
Voting in Obama friendly Cleveland (some polling places) has been extended by an hour so I’d expect the final Ohio result to be narrower than currently being reported.
Unless the trend changes there is no way Clinton will drop out after tonight. Rhode Island is too small to matter but if she wins it plus Ohio and reduces Obama’s delegate in any way she will say she still ahs a chance. Note that for Dems, there are more delegates at stake in Ohio (160) than Texas (130).
It will be interesting to see what happens with the Caucus delegates in Texas. In the past Obama has done very well at caucuses, but Clinton will fire another campaign director if she doesn’t do better in this one after all the time and money they have spend in Texas.
There appears to be a legal stoush brewing around the Texas caucus process. All the democrats need. This is getting very ugly.
I’m fairly sure Texas has more delegates at stake then Ohio.
Just a guess, but does the initial big lead of Obama in Texas, which appears to be getting whittled down as counting progresses, indicate he did well with the large number of pre-polled voters, but that bad publicity of him in recent days (NAFTA) has soured his appeal with those actually casting votes today?
NYT seems internally inconsistent on Texas – map looks far better for Clinton than overall numbers indicate.
Nevertheless if one takes the map at face value then Obama is (perhaps expectedly) miles in front in the key urban areas Houston, Dallas, Fort Worth – but with very low proportions reported – lower than across the rest of the state.
If this is correct it’s bad news for Hillary, especially as she’s already behind (apparently).
And McCain now has until now to November to campaign, gives the Republicans a head start and they’ll need it to hang onto the Whitehouse…
Question is who will McCain pick as VP?
Hopefully Condi Rice or Colin Powell!
On CNN, Obama currnetly ahead by 76,426 votes in Tx. I will update for general entertainment.
HAHAHA Obama has only won 2 county’s in Ohio so far!
Obama ahead by 75,915 in Tx…
The narrowing the narrowing!
Socrates – Texas has 193 delegates, Ohio has 141.
Obama by 74,411 in Tx…
Further to Claude’s comment there is (not surprisingly) nothing reported at all in Ohio urban areas yet.
I don’t think Ohio’s over at this stage.
Obama by 73,336 in Tx…
“I don’t think Ohio’s over at this stage”.
Is this to be spoken with a Michael Kroger voice?
If not for Dallas and Austin Obama would have no lead at all in Texas…i suspect the black vote has something to do with his leads in the big cities.
Not my specialty I’m afraid, Smile
Dyno
Its not that simple in Texas. The early lead for Obama included a lot of pre-poll votes. Texas also has large hispanic communities in their big cities that have favoured Clinton in other States. I think it will be quite close in Texas.
Obama by 72,674 in Tx…
58 Clinton
40 Obama
OHIO
Soc,
Sure, I was really more commenting on the opacity of the NYT coverage.
Asanque
You are right; I misunderstood the CNN site. Ohio has 168 Dem delegates. Texas has a total of 228 when you include the caucus.
That being said, I still don’t think Clinton will drop out if she wins either of Ohio or Texas tonight.
If not for Iowa, Hawaii, Wisconsin, Missouri, Illinois etc. then Hillary would be in the lead.
Soc @ 99,
She certainly won’t drop out if she wins OH by 20 points!
They’ve called Rhode Island for Hillary, I wonder whether this small state counts
What is Brutus Huckabee giving us here?: “Senator McCain has run an honorable campaign because he’s an honorable man.”
Obama back out to lead by 73,127 in Tx
On the face of it, 60/38 with a whopping 14% counted as I write, looks like a massacre for Obama.
But it’s worth contrasting the county-by-county voting maps (on NYT and doubtless others) with the Ohio population concentration map: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Ohio_population_map.png. It’s largely the hicksville counties at the moment.
However, having an urbanised population (especially outer burbs) doesn’t necessarily favour Obama: Clermont County, whose population base is largely Cincinatti’s outer sprawl, has split 62:37 to Clinton. In addition, there are quite a few hicksville counties still to go: and even though the counties might be hicksville, the people in them are really getting out and voting for her in numbers, e.g. Lawrence County with about 10,000 votes cast, currently splitting 79:19 for her!
If Obama doesn’t get well into the mid-40s, probably high 40s, in Ohio, and convincingly win Texas to boot (a v big ask), then the Clinton machine will keep rolling on. And on. And on. It’s hard to see a big event that could cause her to say ’stop’ any time soon. The nearest is Indiana and North Carolina with a grand total of 218 delegates between them, on May 6. That’s an eternity away.
I don’t think it’s looking good for Obama to bring this show to a close today.
Wow, Clinton bolts, Obama now leads by 63,994 in Tx…
Obama lead now down to 62000 in Texas. It has reduced from an initial 85000 lead.
51 Obama
48 Clinton
TX
WOW!
THE NARROWING!
Another blast from the HillaryBot – Obama now leads by only 42,704 in Tx…
Obama lead down to 41,335 in Tx…
Obama lead in texas is now down to 40,000. As all those hispanic city booths come in Hillary could still win Texas. The caucus will be crucial.
Obama lead down to 39,557 in Tx…
The latinos aren’t backing Obama by the looks of things, good news for Hillbilly!
Gooooooooo Hillary woooooooooooooooooooo!!!!!!!
Obama lead drops to 38,282 in Tx…
Re Ohio, RCP reports:
“The populous Cuyahoga (Cleveland) and Hamilton (Cininnati) counties have not reported results yet. This plays a huge role in why Clinton is currently up 20 points, according to CNN’s results reporting. Those two counties should bring the race closer as they begin reporting. “
Yeeha Clinton is romping home with so much more to count, good news for Billary!
Obama’s fortunes are Changing as we speak!
Obama won Loving County of Texas 7 votes to 5 – it’s the least populous county in the US and as far as I can tell no one there voted for any of the Republican candidates.
http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_plank/archive/2008/03/04/bellwether.aspx
In Rhode Island and Vermont looks like they’re sharing the 18 delegates 9-9.
SimonH
Just oen thing on the “Hillary machine”. Obviously my having reached teh view that I would prefer Clinton as the democrat candidate biases me, but I find the many references to the Hillary machine (not just yours) to be odd. Obama has run a great campaign, and he has attracted more money than Clinton, and obvioulsy has more workers in the field than her in most states. That is fair enough given Obama’s popularity, but why no comments on the Obama machine? In my view, he has run one of the slickest campaigns for a long time, complete with lots of media coverage and Hollywood celebrity endorsements. In short, I think he has the biggest, cleverest machine in this race.
Obama lead to 35,623 in Tx…
Everyone seems very excited by the obvious. Once it was established that Clinton rules the Hooterville minor counties, then inevitably Obama’s pre-poll lead would be whittled down (possibly even reversed) as their results come in first.
The real issue is which way it will go when the big cities and burbs start bringing in solid numbers.
Socrates,
Couldn’t agree more. Just using the established short-hand of political debate: on one side, it’s ‘the Clinton machine’ or ‘Billary’. On the other, it’s ‘the Obama cult of personality’ or ‘Obamania’. (If it was being run in Australia, it would hopefully be ‘the Barrackers’.)
Doesn’t change the fact that Clinton is a very polished public speaker, or that Obama has a large and well-resourced team behind him, of course.
With Cincinnati in Clinton still leads 57 to 41!
Obama lead to 31,039 in Tx…
Obama by 29,757 in Tx…
43% of Ohions (?) live in Cleveland. Lets wait until they come in…
Is there a reason Glen is cheering on Hillary? I wasn’t aware Hillary was the golden girl of conservative politics.
SimonH
We agree on both points.
SimonH is right about Texas – it depends on the big cities. Still very limited data for them.
I would find that a staggering result ViggoP, as RI has 21 delegates and VT 15 from today’s primaries.
Hey Glen, who’d have thought you’d be cheering a Clinton home?! You radical…
Obama by 27,238 in Tx…
LTEP
I have seen quite a few polls that suggest MCain is more likley to beat Hillary than Obama. But I could be wrong. Perhaps Glen is hoping for a democrat win in November… ?
still caucus to come in Texas boys n girls.
The Vermont “ordinary” delegates have already been provisionally split 8-4 to Obama, with the three supers remaining.
LTEP, I think there has been a dearth of victories of late. You’ve gotta take em where they present in tough times…
My mail is 12-9 Clinton on RI and 9-6 Obama in Vermont.
Making it dead even.
In the Texas primaries each percentage point is worth about 1 1/4 delegate; in Ohio, about 1 1/2. So, at this stage, Hilary is gaining 21 1/2 delegates in the two.
More on Texas – seems the expectation is for around 3.3 million votes, so while only 13% or so of precincts are in, close to 40% of the votes may already be in.
http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_plank/archive/2008/03/04/texas-raw-vote.aspx
Socrates, the VT Democratic delegation is made up of 15 delegates pledged from today’s primaries, and 8 super delegates.
http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P08/VT-D.phtml
No but i could stand Hillary more as she actually articulates her policies Pancho instead of talking pie in the sky rhetoric…she’s the Democrat substance candidate IMHO.
McCain is a good campaigner and it will be tough to get out the vote for Republicans come November. Still glad Huckleberry is out now McCain has to pick a good Veep!
With 34% counted and Hillary ahead by 120,000 votes id say its all over for Obama in Ohio….but much more interesting in TX 50 Obama 48 Clinton with just 14% counted…Billary is looking good!
#128 LTEP
I presume Glen is cheering on Hillary because he thinks the Republicans will find it easier to beat her than Obama? Is that right, Glen?
I happen to agree with this theory. But I also think either Democratic candidate will beat McCain.
ABC newsradio is now broadcasting a PBS special on the primaries.
I think it’s live, but I’m not sure
Interestingly the NYT’s very early figures show Cleveland splitting roughly 50-50.
If (emphasise “if”) that holds then Hillary has Ohio in the bag, I would have thought.
Obama by 27,951 in Tx…
Politico suggest delegate split:
Rhode Island: delegate allocation is likely 10-8 (to clinton)
and Vermot 6-4 to Obama.
So that would make it even before Ohio and Texas
No matter whether Clinton or Obama wins, the conservatives are a spent force and will be out of power in both the US and Australia for a loooong time.
Thanks Al, looks like my information was old.
As a general comment, unless the Texas caucus is one sided it looks like Clinton might reduce Obama’s lead by 20-30 today, but Obama will still be 60-70 in front overall.
Better go and pick that fantasy football team…
No Antonio i have switched a few times pissed off with the Clinton campaign and Hillary crying and then i got sick of listening to Rhetoric from Obama thus im back on the Hillbilly bandwagon on the Democrat side! It will be hard for the Republicans to win come November against either candidate IMHO.
I think people shoudl understand that Clinton is likely to do better than average in Cleveland on economic grounds. Clevelnad is one of the hardest hit US cities by the sub-prime mortgage crisis. A lot of people there are desperate for a fix to teh economy, and Clinton tends to do better with those areas. Better educated city areas tend to favour Obama.
Texas polls closed about 15 minutes ago so we should get some interesting figures through shortly. Exits seem to favour Clinton
Obama now only up by 20,529 in Tx…
According to CNN, black vote down, latino vote up to almost 30% of all votes
Whites split 55-44 Clinton
William,
Not so much saying Cleveland was expected to be good for Obama, more just that the maths is such that I would have thought he needed a bit of a margin there in order to have a chance of catching up across the state.
The Cleveland figures I quoted are on less than 0.5% so it’s “very early days” (cliche alert!).
Obama now only up by 17,614 in Tx…
Obama only up by 16,000 in Tx…
Dallas and Houston each have Obama better than 60/40.
Very little counted in either city, but even so surely this bodes ill for HRC?
Obama lead to 8,421 in Tx…
Surely if Clinton can snatch Ohio and Texas she’ll have enough Mo to get the nomination given she’ll then sweep Pennsylvania a big State soon after?
158 yeah, looks like the cities will give Obama back some ground in TX, it should also be interesting to see how close Ohio can get.
Dyno, I arrived at the understanding that Cleveland (and to a greater extent Columbus) was expected to be good for Obama independently of yourself. I may be mistaken however.
Glen, there remains no conceivable way that Clinton can overtake Obama in delegates. This contest remains great drama, but little more.
Obama will withdraw later today after he realises he simply cant win any of the big crucial states
Pancho what about super delegates?
SeanofPerth – That’s fantasy land, mate. He won’t do that.
Still trying to figure out why I prefer Clinton over Obama. Not that I think one is particularly more trustworthy than the other, but Obama gives me the creeps for some reason.
Not that my thoughts on this matter, being an Oz voter
Glen:
Do you have a maths problem as well?
http://www.newsweek.com/id/118240
I cant stand Obama, being a young liberal douche, id expect to run straight after him, but his airy fairy speeches and associated crap p*ss me off.
After watching all the debates etc, Hillarys wins hands down on policy and competency.
Obama is so arrogant, he acts like hes the saviour of America.
If hes the nominee I just cant see him winning, McCain is trustworthy and not on the far right, hes a safe bet against a young dweeb.
Hillary is trustworthy as well, more in the centre but younger than McCain, shell cream the old man
To the Obama dreamers, the Big Mo eh? More to say later. Adam where are you? Should have stick with us.
Clinton now up in Texas…
Clinton up by 1707 in Texas.
I’m surprised they haven’t called Ohio with Obama 180,000 votes behind.
Texas is looking too close to call, with Hillary only a few hundred votes behind.
And shes gone back up in Ohio to above 57% again
Clinton now by 2,476 in Tx…
128
LTEP Says:
March 5th, 2008 at 2:06 pm
Is there a reason Glen is cheering on Hillary? I wasn’t aware Hillary was the golden girl of conservative politics.
…that’s too funny!
Clinton by 7,291 in Tx, 25% reporting…
Oh yeah, and thank$ McCain, I’ve done it again.
They’re not calling Ohio because only 2% of precincts in Hamilton Country (Cincinnati) are reporting – where Obama is currently leading 60/39.
There’s also the fact that only 2% of precincts are reporting in Cuyahoga County (Cleveland) – although Clinton is up 51/48 there…
asanque,
I agree, the only place (mathematically) that could save Obama is Cleveland, which is still 50/50 (only 3% counted, though).
Clinton by 9,515 in Tx, 29% reporting…
Up by 10,000 in TX now
11,000
18,000
Clinton by 18,597 in Tx, 32% reporting…
19,000, i think you all get the picture
Clinton by 19,010…
CNN called Ohio for Hillary!!! Go Girl, Go
Nobody has EVER won POTUS without winning Ohio
Fox News projects Hillary wins Ohio, ahead by 200,000
Fox News projects Hillary wins Ohio, ahead by 200,000
Can I ask a silly question, in Texas What areas caused Obama to obtain a lead of 85,000 and now trails,
Finnigans…
In the primary or the election? Cos regardless of what goes down, i can hardly see the people who are voting for Clinton (unions) voting for the Republicans come november….
“Can I ask a silly question, in Texas What areas caused Obama to obtain a lead of 85,000 and now trails”
I believe it was a lead in pre-polled votes.
“Nobody has EVER won POTUS without winning Ohio” – In the Democratic Primary?
It must be worring to the Repubs that they are being outnumbered 2-1 again in the primaries.
Although they have less to vote for then the Democrats, and may be crossing lines.
Thanks smile.
Pancho, that is interesting.
#194 – In POTUS election
Hilary currently up 29 1/2 delegates on the day
The Australian media have been writing off Hillary for weeks. I did refelct the way the american expats here voted. There is deep suspicion of the Clintons including in Oz. I heard Barack refer to new leadership the other day. Sounds a bit familiar. Seems to be neKt and neck between the secondhand station wagon and the brand new 4WD. I’m working on a graphic to go with the metaphor.
There are still 1311 delegates up for grabs. To see where, when and how many look at
http://politics.nytimes.com/election-guide/2008/primaries/democraticprimaries/index.html
Clinton’s lead cut back to 15,144 in Tx, 38% reporting…
Mexican Beemer, I was questioning The Finnegans@188, not asserting.
I would also say that a black man has never won the Democratic Primary before 2008, so such trivia doesn’t necessarily hold into the future.
RE Texas & Ohio
At the moment Mrs Clinton is still approx 70 to 100 delegates behind
who will win? I don’t know but the Republicans now have their candidate
any S…t in the remainder of the Democratic primary will be used by Mr Mccain
I don’t think the democrats have the luxury of 2-3 months of the same
…. if they do they run to risk on assuring Mr Mccain wins.
Logically one of the 2 now needs to pull out NOW !!! and support the other
It’s clear that there is no emphatic result in the Dem Primary. They’ll keep on fighting each other for a while yet.
All good for McCain, who is getting close to being the favourite no matter who he is facing IMO.
The fact that Cleveland appears to be a write-off for Obama (i.e. a 50:50 city), makes it simpler to do the maths (or math, if you must) re what’s to come:
1. If Lucas County (Toledo) continues to split 63:36 in his favour (now 20% counted), he’ll gain a further 15,000 on HRC there.
2. If Cincinatti continues to be a 61:38 for him (now 20% counted), he can at best gain another 50,000 on her beyond what he has now.
That’s 65,000 total, and the vote lead for Clinton is an even 200,000.
There’s no juice for Obama anywhere else in the state. A side-note is that Columbus broke nowhere near as hard for him as many thought, at 57:43.
I can’t see how Ohio wouldn’t be called for Clinton.
Clinton now by 17,028 in Tx, 40% reporting…
I fed that line to Hillary “Nobody has EVER won POTUS without winning Ohio”, she just used it live!!!
I wonder if Obama will congratulate Clinton on any victories, given her tendency to pretend her losses didn’t happen?
Has anyone else who has watched CNN come to the conclusion that Lou Dobbs is one of the most unlikeable, wet sods they have ever seen?
what a repelling nature he has. makes your skin crawl
#203
Mick Quinlivan
Obama has a lead of 158 pledged delegates (as of yesterday).
Clinton leads in superdelegates by 44 and 285 remain undeclared.
Taking away Clinton superdelegate lead from Obama pledged delegate lead leaved Obama ahead by 114. Today looks like a 20 delegate gain for Clinton, leaving Obama ahead of Clinton by about 94.
Clinton up by 18,866 in Tx, 44% reporting…
Kevin Rennie @ 198
The best metaphor is the famous Ali Foreman fight where Foreman punched the living suitcase out of Mohummad Ali for seven rounds. Ali absorbed the punishement mainly on his arms and by leaning against the specially loosened (for the occiaission ropes) pre fight. By that time Foreman had punched himself out and unable to defend himself, because of exhaustion, was knocked out in the eighth.
How many opportunities does Obama need to land a knock out Punch?
Can he deliver? Or is he ripe for the taking?
I’m sure KR will agree that Clinton’s victories today are a testament to her character.
Clinton up by 22,666 in Tx, 45% reporting…
GG more to the point with all this momentum why can’t Obama win a big State?
Clinton by 25,721 in Tx, 47% reporting…
#212 – The silence of KR. I want to have the popcorns!!
Clinton by 31,051 in Tx, 48% reporting…
The Finnigans
Do you reckon Obama will conceed tonight, next week or fight it right out to the convention?
I hear Ron’s got some second hand glasses to sell. Never used for the purpose intended.
Clinton by 33,715 in Tx, 49% reporting…
Glen makes a good point actually!
Ohio will be pivotal in the November election! If Obama can’t win it, what does that say about his chances of being McCain overall? And, the other problem for Obama is that many of his victories have come in states that will vote Republican in a presidential election.
It’s all great theatre, a political junkie’s wet dream LOL
The mexicans come to the rescue of Clinton boy does she owe them big time!
Betfair has Hillary at $6.20 for POTUS (she’s been between $8 and $9 most of the past week)
Clinton by 33,384 in Tx, 52% reporting…
It’s frankly weird this site seems to be running ahead of the big US blogs in timeliness and accuracy.
Obama is starting to remind me a lot of Hewson. Hewson turned out a lot of crowds in 1993 who all eagerly chanted ‘Labor’s got to go’ when he asked them to, but voted No, we can’t when they found themselves in the polling booth.
My predicted heading re Clinton: “The Comeback Queen”
So Clinton survives to fight on?
Oh well, onward it must be. However, let’s note, she’s still behind in this race, and 20 point leads have not shrunken considerably. althought the final count won’t be in for both states for a while yet.
She still must win more delegates, and she ain’t yet.
Make that “have shrunken considerably” ! LOL
#218 – GG – I am still getting used to the rose glasses from Ron. The mathematics is for the academic, the politics is for the people.
Personally I think Clinton is a far safer bet for the Democratic Party than Obama. The only shame is that if he ran on the same ticket as Clinton they’d probably get skewered in the southern states.
Best thing is that after Bush it’s hard to imagine the US presidency can be any worse.
Clinton to 35,197 in Tx…
220 – Progressive
On a straight 1 for 1 basis, assuming Obama gets none of Hillary’s votes and McCain gets none of Huckerbee’s votes, Obama thrashes McCain by close to 200000 votes in Ohio.
45,000 according to Fox
Yep, Clinton just blew out to 46,191
Turning now to Texas, as earlier posted, all of the ’she’s coming back, she’s coming back, she’s in FRONT!, she’s leaving Obama in her wake’ stuff is meaningless if she can’t carry the big cities that are starting to roll in.
And she’d better hope that the big cities are as heterogeneous as everyone says, and the strong Obama boroughs reported first, because the current city figures are as follows:
Dallas Obama 63:36 on 36% of votes
Fort Worth Obama 57:42 on 56% of votes
Austin Obama 63:36 on 65% of votes
San Antonio Clinton 56:43 on 31% of votes
Houston Obama 61:39 on 14% of votes
El Paso Clinton 69:29 on 12% of votes
Large-ish population counties surrounding Houston are marginally for Obama. Also worth mentioning for completeness that Cameron County and Hidalgo County in the far south of the state are solid population centres (I don’t know the name of the city/ies), and strongly favour Clinton (68:30 on 40% and 73:25 on 28% respectively). But it’s all nowhere near enough if you get creamed in Dallas/Fort Worth and in Houston.
Clinton is now ahead 34,000 on the counted votes on the last results I saw. But that’s just the rural and regional parts of the state continuing to top her up as their results start petering out. Unless something changes substantially in the big cities, Obama should win going away.
KR,
So it’s only a flesh wound eh?
If Clinton wins TX, today will be a huge PR victory for her. Nothing that happens in Wyoming or Mississippi (both in the next week) will affect her good vibes leading into the six week hiatus pre-Pennsylvania.
Sniff, sniff, sniff……….
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/03/04/and-the-winner-is/
Clinton by 46,857, 53% reporting…
Despite Hillary’s lead, Barack still has quite a few favourable counties to go in Texas.
SimonH @ 233,
You make a valid point – it all depends as you say on whether the Obama booths have reported first for some reason, but if what we have seen so far in Dallas and Houston is representative, Obama would still win.
She’s nudging 50,000 now
Clinton to 48,723 in Tx, 54% reporting…
Antony would have called Texas by now.
Antony would have known where these votes were coming from immediately. compared these results to previous results, pressed a button on his comp, adjusted for changes in booths, and called the election.
Obama suggesting no delegate loss from today.
Obama – “No matter what happens tonight we have the same delegate lead we had this morning and we are on our way to winning this nomination.”
Clinton now to 51,381 in Tx, 55% reporting…
Cameron County – Harlingen and Brownsville
Hidalgo County – McAllen and Edinburg
Clinton to 52,408 in Tx, 55% reporting…
What exactly is the point of dragging out the primary process for so many months?? If the Dem contest goes down to the wire, the process could go on until August, only 3 months before the election. In effect, the Democrats are being punished for having two strong, evenly-matched candidates. Also, in forcing the two to fight so bitterly against each other, it essentially destroys any chance of them running on the same ticket. Meanwhile the Repubs can close ranks around McCain, start promoting him, get the ticket in order, etc, with barely a drop of blood spilled.
Surely the process can be streamlined? You’d think both parties would support it; getting the intra-party fighting behind them as soon as possible and focussing on the main goal.
Clinton to 55,057 in Tx, 57% reporting…
One could say that Obama should have waited and not contested the Democrat primaries given he has yet to serve a full term as US Senator and left the nomination to Clinton but alas that was not to be and it will eventually come down to Denver whilst all the while McCain is scoring points sorted out his ticket and started rallying the troops as Clinton and Obama continue to slug it out!
Clinton to 58,364, 58% reporting…
Where are these big Obama-friendly districts???
Obama should have just made a deal to be VP with Clinton, would have been a sure bet.
Instead hes wasting everyones times acting like hes the modern messiah
You’d also think that at least the Democrats would clean up their proportional allocation of delegates so that you do not get wrong winner results like Nevada and everyone gets to vote in the same manner.
On the other hand, the battle between Clinton and Obama has the whole of the US talking about them.
Assuming it doesn’t devolve into too much trash and alienate too many opposing Democrats, McCain couldn’t buy that amount of publicity.
Why should Obama drop out or become VP when he is leading the delegates count?
He will win more delegates from Texas then Clinton, and the net result of today will be at worst a draw, with Obama still approximately 100 delegates ahead (including super delegates).
The ongoing battle on the Democrat side serves the purpose of stress-testing the candidates under heat – Hillary has learned that showing a bit of emotion can generate a big buzz, Obama has been caught out trying to walk both sides of the street in relation to NAFTA, Hillary has discovered her old campaign team were crap, and so junked them. Creative destruction etc.
It depends on which candidate a greater proportion of people will be willing to setlle for. Are Obama supporters likely to be happy enough to support Clinton? What about the reverse situation? It’s hard to judge but I get the feeling there’s a core group of supporters on both sides who will not be happy voting for the other, which would probably decrease voter turnout for the Democrats overall.
Clinton to 60,454 in Tx, 59% reporting…
And that, Glen (@ 252), is the downside of having an abundance of talent to choose between. It’s much easier to have a barrelful of the talentless to choose from – the least worst rises to the top quickly.
60,111
Going, going …
When are they going to be calling Texas??
59% counted, 3 points ahead for Clinton
What happened to these big Obama precincts?
Clinton lead cut back to 53,898, 63% reporting…
I might have to revise my earlier confidence a bit. I had no idea that the largest cities in Texas, the 2nd most populous state in the union, were so damn small:
http://www.tsl.state.tx.us/ref/abouttx/popcity32000.html
Of course the strength of the USA (at least in the industrial age) was/is in its big towns and small cities. Sitting here, it’s easy to forget that and presume that US states have roughly similar demographic spread to Australian ones.
If those 2000 figures have held to the present day, around 70% of Texas’ over 20 million inhabitants, live in a place with less than 500,000 residents. Mind-blowing. All of those towns and small cities that Hillary held, might add up after all.
Her vote lead has seemingly ‘peaked’ now at just over 50,000, but to stem the bleeding Obama has used up 78% of Austin and half of his Dallas/Fort Worth votes. Meanwhile Hillary still has a tidy number remaining to collect from Cameron/Hidalgo counties and El Paso. So if he’s going to win this thing, it will all be on the shoulders of Houston.
Obama is probably right about no (or almost no) delegate loss, and the mathematical impossibility of a Hillary lead into the convention has already been mentioned.
But, as everyone keeps saying, it’s all about the big Mo.
Lots of votes still to come in from Houston, which is so far breaking 60-40 to Obama.
263
Harris
Obama 151,966 60%
Clinton 102,791 40%
33% reporting
Here’s another approximately 100,000 votes to Obama to come.
He will win more delegates from Texas then Clinton,
I would have thought celebrating yet another state (it looks like Ohio will also give Obama a majority of delegates) where the allegedly proportional allocation of delegates gives the loser more delegates in the winner is pretty thing gruel. As of today Obama has never won a single large state except his own.
If the primary/caucus process is there to test candidates, surely winning the popular vote in large states is a desirable attribute?
Clinton leads by 55,191, 64% reporting…
Clinton leads by 52,198, 64% reporting…
Hold tight Clintonistas, the rollercoaster is at the summit!
Clinton leads by 52,672, 65% reporting…
Not the result many Obama supporters were hoping for – though not a surprising result either. Texas is closer than anyone would have thought only a couple of weeks ago. Ohio is a thumping win for Hillary – 14% lead is not the 20% lead of a fortnight ago, but it’s still a thumping win and stomps all over the polls showing a close vote in that state.
What it does do – whether or not the delegate count is a virtual draw – call into question Obama’s ability to win big states, stall the Big O’s MO and virtually ensure Hillary will keep going to Penn – or until the SDs pull out the rug.
Yes, William at 4.12 pm header entry. Harris County with Obama at 59% to 40% with 34% of votes counted and 250,000 voters, looks good to bail The Kid back a motza in Houston. Texas ain’t done yet.
Not by a long-horn!
268 Alan
Lets compare:
Obama:
1. Leading in popular vote
2. Leading in pledged delegates
3. Leading in most states won overall
4. Leading in most small states won overall
5. Leading in most red states
Clinton
1. Leading in most large states won overall
2. Leading in superdelegates
3. Leading in most blue states
Clinton by 52,365, 66% reporting…
Afternoon all.
So it looks like the race is going to be going on for a bit longer yet. Them’s the breaks. Who knew?
Caucus results in Texas are coming in – 5% reporting, Obama is up 56-44. Not that that means much yet, but you would expect him to win there, given that’s where his advantage lies.
Caucus is 35% of the delegates is it not?
Primaries 126 delegates, caucuses 67, super 12
I love that one – like New York and equivalents are going to go red this November if Obama wins the nomination.
Clinton leads to 53,376, 66% reporting…
The only real surprise of today was Ohio.
Vermont and Rhode Island went as expected.
One could argue Clinton did better in Rhode Island then expected.
They both cancel each other out in terms of delegates.
Texas is looking line ball as expected.
Clinton may just win the popular vote, but will definitely have less delegates as expected.
Clinton held 20 point leads in Ohio a few weeks ago but polls indicated a far closer result then 56/42. This does damage Obama somewhat as it would have been a great state for him to stake his credentials in a demographic that favoured Clinton.
Purely on the expectations front, I’d rate today as a win for Clinton. From 1 month ago, its a win for Obama. And from a purely mathematical perspective, it was a draw.
Asanque
I won’t get to vote in this one and I’m not really passionate about either surviving Democrat. I will say that doing things like counting ‘more small states won’ as somehow equal to ‘more large states won’ is not comparing like with like and is positively insane as you head for a presidential election where the unit rule cancels any small state advantage the electoral college might provide.
The same criticism applies to a crude claim about the popular vote. I think Clinton was insane not to run everywhere, but popular vote in states is not a clear number where both candidates did not contest all primaries.
There may be a route to the Democratic nomination where you do not have to win the popular vote in any large states. There is no route to the White House where you do not have to win the popular vote in any large state.
I am passionate about voting systems and voting systems that repeatedly assign the majority of delegates for a state to the loser of the popular vote in that state are not only grossly unfair, but tactically insane when in November the winner of the popular vote in a state will secure all the electoral college votes for that state.
Clinton lead to 54,220, 66% reporting…
Clinton lead to 54,806, 68% reporting…
redictions 4 weeks ago: Texas when Clinton led in Polls 59/41
Davidoff Obama 54/46. Ron Clinton 51/49
But Texas is not lost for Obama anyway
1/ Houston will be big for Obama
2/ the delegate split at the precinct level favours Obama where more delegates are electable in Afro American precincts than Latino districts due to higher voting numbers in the former in preceding election.
Growler our group’s rose coloured glass’s have GPS facility so we are keeping tabs on your web link forays into the virtual reality zone but keep the faith
A very good day for McCain. Again the Dems are set on losing the unloseable election, with all that means for Iraq, the Supreme Court and so on.
Surely on the Democrat side it isn’t about the delegates anymore. If it comes down to an argument about delegates, Clinton is going to bring up Florida and Michigan… this is a fight to see who withdraws first, I thought.
asanque @ 275
Total popular vote before tonight
Obama = 10 876 624
Hillary = 10 574 350
Therefore Obama is leading by 302 274 (~1.5%)
So far tonight Hillary has gained ~310 000 more total votes than Obama.
Therefore it may be different at the end of the night, but as of right now Hillary has actually won the popular vote in America.
Clinton lead to 56,934, 69% reporting…
Clinton lead to 61,444, 71% reporting…
283 – Alan
Given Obama has far more votes in all primaries for the majority if not all of the large states then McCain on a 1 on 1 basis (not even considering that Democrats have been vastly outnumbering Republicans in each of the primaries) what makes you think that he would be less likely to win the large states?
I understand your logic, but by concentrating on large states to the exclusion of small states, you undermine the popular vote as well.
Clinton to 63,298, 73% reporting…
Adrian at 289
I’m not sure where you are getting your figures.
However, I get mine here:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/
Obama is leading by just over 600,000 votes.
Agree, Max. In addition, to say ‘hasn’t won a big state, nyah nyah’ doesn’t mean anything regarding his electability as president given that:
a) he would/will win California and NY, the 1st and 3rd biggest states in the union
b) there’s nothing to pick one way or t’other as to Texas, the 2nd biggest state– and I would need to be given odds before I would back either HRC or Obama to beat McCain there
c) There’s been no contest in Florida, the 4th biggest, and
d) the 5th biggest is Illinois– ‘derr’ on that one.
The test should not be ‘who’s winning red or blue states’. The test should be (and in November, is) ‘who’s winning the swing states?’
That one seems fairly line-ball, with Obama perhaps having an edge.
Adrian, you are including Florida and Michigan in that count, which is dodgy at best, grossly unfair at worst.
So who will Clinton’s VP be if not Obama clearly if she wins he cant be on the ticket so much bad blood???
FakNews called Texas for Hillary
Clinton to 70,703, 74% reporting…
I’m no expert on USA politics so this is just my own personal view but from watching CNN it seems that Hillary has the poor and working class vote while Obama has the black, the rich and the cafe late type vote.
HE gives me the heebee jeeebees, snake oil salesman and sprucker comes to mind evertime i see him.
White mother Kenyan father yet we get all this hullabaloo about him being a black american and his black roots, that sorta seems a bit dishonest and gets up my nose a bit as well.
Another thought, when the real election is on wouldn’t states like Vermont be safe Republian whereas bellweather ones like Ohio could be the difference between a Democrat or Republican in the whitehouse?
I’d call Texas for Hillary to, after my latest look at the counties.
Harris (Pro-Obama) is now 50% done, and El Paso (Pro-Clinton) is similar.
At best I can see Obama catching up 16k votes in total which will not be enough.
Asanque
I am not excluding the small states at all. I am saying that it’s only a rhetorical device to cancel out Obama’s unhappy record in large states and not a very good rhetorical device at that.
Are you saying that small states should count for more than large states? How would you distinguish that argument from the Bush 2000 argument?
As a comment on the “city vs county” bit you have to remember that, like Australia, many US cities have outgrown their historical boundaries and so many counties are actually parts of neighboring cities. Thus Riverside county is home to 2 million residents of Los Angeles. For Texas, Dallas spreads into Collins, Denton, Rockwell and Kaufman counties. The biggest part of Houston is in Harris county but there are also 9 other counties in the metro area.
… gone!
294 @ asanque and Max @ 296
Yes I included Florida and Michigan in the count – afterall we were talking the total popular vote weren’t we, not “the total popular vote excluding Florida and Michigan”. By all means I concede that Obama has won more pledged delegates, but you are double dipping if you ignore the delegates from Florida and ignore the votes of people from Florida in the popular vote. To leave out Florida and Michigan stretches the definition of “popular vote” beyond belief.
302 – Alan
I refer to Simon H’s post at 295.
I am not saying small states should count for more. I am saying small states should not count for less
Which is basically saying that any argument based on Hillary winning large states being the prime reason for being the Democratic candidate is flawed.
But Florida and Michigan didn’t have real elections Adrian!?
CNN calls Texas for Clinton.
Max
If you’re going to exclude Florida and Michigan, then surely you also need to exclude those states where both candidates did not contest the state?
Thinking about the whole confusion of delegates, primaries vs caucuses and arcane vote counting by county, I second the motion that Antony Green should just be given a contract by NBC or another major network to do a website to make sense of it. His site for Australia is miles ahead of all aspects of the US system I have encountered.
For that matter, maybe we could just export the AEC on a full time basis to revise the US system.
Well it looks as though the Democrats have decided they would rather have another four years of Republican rule than assume the burdens of power just now. Either they will nominate the unelectable Obama, or they will tear each other to bits in Denver before nominating a fatally wounded Clinton. Terrific. I forgot it’s the 40th anniversary of 1968. Obviously the ghosts of Abbie Hoffman and Jerry Rubin have returned to haunt the Dems.
It all shows how wrong we, the chattering classes, usually get things. A few months ago we were all certain that Clinton would walk into the nomination, while the Repubs would nominate some crazy right-winger. Instead the most electable Repub in the field has had an easy ride to the nomination, while the Dems have decided to have a McGovern moment and throw away the election on a wave of Kumbaya-singing.
I think I am a reasonable barometer of slightly-centre-of-left opinion. If I was an American voter, right now I would vote for McCain over Obama.
This is the only story I have seen recently which has cheered me up at all.
http://www.theonion.com/content/news/nations_presidential_assassins
I’m off to Europe next weekend so I probably won’t be back here much until the next Australian election draws nigh (William, will you still be at your post then?) If you open a thread on the Italian elections I will contribute, as I hope to be there for election day.
I hope you all enjoy the McCain presidency. Hasta la vista.
(Exit, singing “Bomb, bomb, bomb; Bomb, bomb Iran”)
Oh to be in Pennsylvania. 7 weeks of personal attention from two very good candidates, coming up!
305 – Adrian
How can you possibly count the popular vote in Michigan, when Obama was not on the ballot.
You can possibly count the popular vote in Florida, but given neither candidate campaigned, it wouldn’t be a very accurate indicator.
Asanque
No-one is here arguing that small states should count for less. It is you who raised the small states equal large states argument and you have yet to show how or why that is.
Oh I shudder when I read that, because that’s what Hillary will be saying tomorrow.
I don’t see it as double dipping. I would see it as utterly hypocritical to say ‘we are ignoring the delegates, but lets include them in the popular vote because it boosts our numbers.’ Either the two states are included – despite breaking the rules – or they are not. The state is either in play, or it isn’t. There are no two ways about this.
My personal opinion is that they should not be counted, although I accept I am biased with the fact it would help Hillary in this race. But even if it would have helped Obama, I would have felt very uncomfortable about the votes being included given nobody campaigned there, and agreed to play dead.
Dyno @ 307.
They had real elections, the two candidates just didn’t campaign in their states. Why not discount all the caucus states, afterall they are grossly undemocratic and heavily under-represent the poor, the military, the old, the disabled, etc. Look at Washington – Obama won the caucus (which counted) by a 3-1 ratio while he won the primary (which didn’t count) by a very narrow margin.
Popular vote simply has to mean every vote cast, including caucuses, including states that no one campaigned in, including states where one candidate didn’t campaign in (like Hillary in Idaho).
KR where’s your messiah now? Couldn’t Ohio, couldn’t win Texas, couldn’t win Rhode Island, what have you got to say for yourself your boy is looking soft to me can’t hack it in the big States and now Clintons got the MO to take her to Denver!
Hey Adam what about ‘go, johnny go go, go johnny go go!’?
311 – Adam
Well one of us is going to be very wrong in November.
I suspect it will be you.
Clinton on 81,115 lead, 76% reporting in Tx. I have no idea where the supposed late 100,000 Obama votes went, but if they’re out there they must be very cleverly disguised…
Clinton Lives.
What a bad night for the Democrats.
Obama still maintains his insurmountable delegate lead.
Clinton gets enough oxygen to stay in.
but
The only way she can win is if the Super’s overturn the popular vote.
as i say a bad night.
just picture guys like George W Bush,Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter giggling.
Ohio win to Clinton might be a little less than early figues suggested. Latest NY Times at 86% counted Clinton 55%- Obama 43%
As to early judgements about the impact of a closely fought Democratic contest – just as likely to advantage the Democrats as not.
Why Obama might be considered to be unelectable is a bit of a puzzle – On the Republican side McCain has some potential weaknesses
asanque @ 313
Obama took himself off the ballot in Michigan but was on the ballot in Florida. Why should you discount a popular vote in the age of national TV, newspaper and internet news simply because the candidate didn’t turn up in the state?
Basically, it seems like you are putting conditions on “popular vote”, which doesn’t seem fair to me.
Alan @ 314
Actually I would argue that small states should count for less, but only to the extent that they are smaller in population
Max @ 315
Obama was the person who made a big deal of “popular vote” being the criteria by which super-delegates should judge their vote on. Anyway, popular vote is a completely meaningless statistic in terms of actual power, since no delegates are assigned to the winner of the popular vote. I’m just not convinced that because the state party broke the rules we should ignore all the voters in that state when counting up the popular vote.
314 – Alan
I think we are arguing at cross purposes here.
I was arguing against the proposition that just because Clinton had won more large states, means that she is more electable as the democratic candidate.
I think that was rebutted clearly in 295.
316 – Adrian
You must be kidding
If Hillary didn’t campaign in Idaho, its her own fault, and she was still on the ballot.
Obama didn’t campaign in Florida and Michigan because the DNC suspended Florida and Michigan for breaking party rules. All parties signed a pledge not to campaign in either state.
Sure Obama won in caucuses in various states. There is no argument that he would have lost those states if they were primaries. He still would have won, and the primary vote for Obama would be even higher.
Adrian: ‘Basically, it seems like you are putting conditions on “popular vote”, which doesn’t seem fair to me.’
No, that would be the DNC, which put conditions on the ballots in order for them to be valid.
322 – Adrian
Obama and Edwards took themselves off the ballot in Michigan, in accordance with party rules.
They couldn’t take their names off the ballot in Florida as that would have contravened Florida election rules.
Both Obama and Clinton agreed that neither Florida and Michigan would count if they broke DNC rules.
You cannot count a popular vote when the candidates don’t campaign. That’s simple logic.
asanque
I will resist the temptation to suggest your comment at 311 should be read in the light of light of your record in reading the popular vote in Texas especially your prediction about the 100 k votes from Harris County. So there:)
HarryH hasn’t Ann Coulter said she’d rather Hillary Clinton than McCain?
On the small states vs large states it’s seems to me to be a moot point.
As Obama is demonstrating, if you win LOTS of small states it equals a big state. So what?
On one of the ballots (Missouri?) Obama wasn’t even an option. Makes it very hard to claim Missouri should be there.
Even in Florida, where there was no Obama organisation it seems highly dubious to count the votes.
#311 Adam – you were wrong before, you will wrong again. Hillary will the next POTUS in November. For a professional, you are missing the fundamentals badly.
328 RA,
It was Michigan. But the substance of your argument is right, it’s an absurdity to include Michigan or Florida.
Of course. He is a politician. Clinton would have done exactly the same – she HAS done exactly the same using the advantages she has at her disposal (experience etc.)
I understand your argument. My argument is that either the states count, or they don’t. As it stands, neither truly represents the will of the people, because the people didn’t think their vote would count. Which impacted whether they went out to vote at all. So I don’t think they should count.
But that’s an argument which will be fought out over the coming days and weeks. Again.
Why so confident Finnigans?
McCain is priced by the markets as having a roughly 33% chance and that seems about right to me. He’ll be the underdog in the big race, but it’s not too hard to see him winning?
Has anyone else considered the wonderful irony that if Florida and Michigan had left their primaries right near the end they would now be the MOST IMPORTANT PRIMARIES !!!
Instead they got greedy and lost out.
asanque @ 323
Look at Washington State for an example in the difference between caucuses and primaries. He won the caucus by 37% but the primary by only 5%. That is an extra 32% difference in the same state just based on the caucus vs primary difference. Easy to explain, Obama’s core demographic is more likely to turn up in a caucus than the blue collar worker of Clinton’s demographic.
How can you contend that an extra 32% couldn’t have swayed some of the Obama caucus wins into Hillary wins? Anyway, I’m not trying to ignore caucus votes in the popular vote, I am including these flawed votes just as I’m including the Florida and Michigan flawed votes.
326 – Alan
The prediction is yet to be proved incorrect and Obama looks likely to get that additional 100k votes.
The reason that Hillary is still in the lead in Texas is due to her strength in other counties.
Harris
Clinton 120,679 41%
Obama 170,291 58%
50% reporting
#332 – It’s the fundamentals.
With 51% of Houston counted, some Hillary booths (or less Obama-biased booths) have started coming in. It’s down to 58:41 Obama.
The numerical vote advantage hasn’t dipped. In fact, it’s increased substantially to 82,000.
And as well as spending 51% of Houston, Obama’s now spent over 70% of Dallas/Ft Worth and 84% of Austin. There are so few winning counties for him in the state, that there are no meaningful beach-heads left beyond those cities.
Looks like the Hispanics and the rural centres did him in after all. Time to admit it. Alan Scott, I was wrong.
Of course, it’s a win for the headline writers and political strategists, not a win in the pledged delegate count (Obama will win that). But, at this stage of the game, that’s what HRC was after.
With Pennsylvania (22 April) a strong state for her, I think this is going to at least 6 May. And quite possibly all the way. Hey, why not?
334 – Adrian
Caucus vote are not flawed, as they form part of the election process of the Democrats as sanctioned by the DNC.
Florida and Michigan votes are flawed, as they do NOT form part of the election process by breaching rules of the DNC.
You cannot change the rules in the middle of the game, especially when you agreed to them at the start.
Is this where a somewhat bemused foreigner mentions the principle of equal voting, and that inherent in that principle is that everyone in an election should have an equal chance to vote? Equality of voting requires a uniform method of voting, preferably with some reliable way of knowing whether or not your vote will count.
I see the most sensible course forward for the Democrats as putting Clinton up for pres (with a suitably Southern-friendly VP) and put Obama up for Governor of Illinois in 2010.
This will, of course, not happen.
KR – where’s my popcorns?
Finnegans, I agree that IF Clinton is nominated, and IF Denver doesn’t turn into a re-run of Chicago 68, and IF the African-American electorate doesn’t take umbrage and abstain in November, then she would have a good show of beating McCain, who of course has weaknesses of his own (Iraq, Bush, age, etc). But those are three very big IFs, and I am less than optimistic about them.
SimonH @ 337,
Agree with all that. I too thought that the big cities would save Obama in TX, but it doesn’t look like it now.
I think it will go to the Convention unless one of the candidates “blows up”. (And that’s unlikely to be Clinton, as surely there can’t be too many more sordid revelations/allegations about her family?)
Clinton by 84,623, 82% reporting…
So selecting the looser is your recommendation?
On looking again at 335 and my earlier post – it appears the mathematics from CNN are skewed
Finns @ 336,
Sure.
Here’s one key fundamental, though: McCain is not Bush, and barely resembles him except for being a white male Republican.
There would be plenty of people who think Bush is a prize idiot but who would happily vote for McCain.
If Iraq is not seen to deteriorate between now and November, I think the Dems will have a fight on their hands. The Dems are still favourites, but in the absence of (further) meltdown in Iraq it’s a close race in my view.
#342 – Adam – I will give my “fundamentals” later. There are still a number of issues that still whirling in my mind require further solidification. Enjoy your trip to Europe.
Adrian, your argument is non-sensical and i don’t know why others are even engaging you on it.
339 – Alan
That’s very true
The US voting system is weird.
I can only imagine that there will be some reform by the next race.
Come in KR you have some explaining to do about Texas???
Your boy Obama is going to get another pumping in delegate rich Pennsylvania too, looks like the MO is now with Clinton!
By the way I don’t think the worsening economy is much of a negative for McCain if the Dems nominate Obama.
Clinton would have the edge on tghe economy, though.
If it goes to the convention the establishment candidate will win, Clinton!
“So selecting the looser is your recommendation?”
Mate, who the ‘looser’ is in this race is what is being debated. There isn’t (and probably won’t be until August) a winner on delegate numbers, hence it isn’t possible to say who the ‘looser’ is until then. My recommendation would be to cut losses now, put up Clinton and start campaigning against McCain. Obama has future elections to win.
Clinton by 92,578, 83% reporting…
Dyno and Simon
You have to remember that there is a big latino population in those Texas cities. They are not like the other southern cities. Hence tougher for Obama. The claim that the “big cities would come in” was false. Via urban counties (see my 303), those votes had been coming in for some time.
Dyno 352
Apart from my own preferences, that is why I would argue the Dems should nominate Clinton. She is more economically skilled than Obama or McCain, and they will be in a formal recession before November. McCain is very vulnerable on that issue. He has publically admitted he doesn’t know much about it.
I told you! When you write her off, she comes back.
As Realpolitics said – Clinton had a lead of 6% in Ohio and a narrow lead in Texas in the poll averages… Yet the conventional “wisdom” (and I used the term wisdom very lightly when I refer to certain bloggers here these days) still wrote her off.
http://www.hillaryclinton.com/video/145.aspx
Go Hillary!
One more thing on the numbers – if this gets any closer for the Dems, future Vice President Edwards could name his price for his remaining delegates come convention time. and you can see what I think the price will be. I actually preferred his policies to both Obama and Clinton, so thats fine by me.
Clinton to 95,589, 84% reporting…
Glen, Obama became the establishment candidate some time ago with endorsements from the Kennedys, Teamsters Union etc…
Looks like Americans (particularly struggle state ones like Ohio) like the underdog just like Australians do. If you read and watched the press in the last week they declared her a candidate dead-walking… Just like they did after Iowa… When will they learn?
Maybe the media (and the bloggers here, KR in chief) are working secretly for Clinton campaign ‘writing her off’ to bring her back in the race.
Thanks guys!
Hillary Wins Ohio – http://youtube.com/watch?v=JimYeQMr6Vc
A general ‘tone down’ in the partisan politics right now would probably do everyone some good, no?
Caucus results are trickling in in Texas, 54-46 to Obama at this stage. With 13% in. Maybe results will pick up a bit now primary counting has by and large finished.
Max, caucuses are hideously anti-democratic and favour party elites who have two hours to spare on weekday night in the middle of winter. Obama wins them only because it’s the rich educated Democratic elite who can afford to indulge in such encounters.
The turn out is consequently minuscule and it’s the equivalent of an Australian party pre-selection. Their results should not have any import.
Well Clinton has come back a very small amount. Of course we need to wait for all the results to come in to see how much that is.
Good of Adam to leave us with one of the funnier things he’s ever written:
“I think I am a reasonable barometer of slightly-centre-of-left opinion.”
Sorry. Couldn’t resist. Enjoy yr holiday, dude.
Let’s be serious for a moment here – the man has 26 delegates out of 4000 or so. And I’m willing to bet that half those delegates have already jumped on another bandwagon, and wouldn’t vote for who he asked them for anyway.
No, if he wanted to be kingmaker in that way he would have stayed on through super tuesday, and kept a couple hundred delegates on him. He hasn’t. Maybe he is looking for a VP deal, but if so the message wouldn’t be ‘pick me, I have 26 delegates’, it would be about repairing the party which is about to suffer massive internal wounds.
Is it me, or in both Ohio and Texes Obama wins in the large cities….
Be that as it may, 67 delegates will be chosen as a result of these caucuses tonight. Obama will probably take a net gain from them. And as a result, Texas will be all tied up, meaning that Clinton will only gain a delegate advantage from Ohio tonight (the two small states have cancelled each other out.)
“Let’s be serious for a moment here – the man has 26 delegates out of 4000 or so. And I’m willing to bet that half those delegates have already jumped on another bandwagon, and wouldn’t vote for who he asked them for anyway.”
They are HIS delegates, they vote for who HE wants them to. As he WON them in the elections. Only superdelegates can change after the state’s elections.
So Clinton in still in the race, pity. Oh well, she won 3, he won 2, but after 11 straight loses, I guess she had to get lucky sometime.
But at the end of the day, Obama is still ahead on delegates, and she did not win Texas by nearly enough to make it matter, nor Ohio for that matter. And that folks, is the simple maths. She’s still behind and today was lots of noise signifying very little.
So, a 20 point lead across the nation and 120 million bucks later and she is still behind, and from here, despite all the backslapping going on, it still doesn’t look like she can win it from here.
Sorry folks, dems the roolz, ya gotta win the delegates, and she ain’t got enough to even catch the leader.
CNN has now called Texas for Clinton too.
JR 361
I totally agree, and that was the gist of my discussion with SimonH earlier. Obama has a huge machine behind him now. He raised $138 million to 31 January 2008. He has proudly (and truthfully) pointed out that most is private donations, with more than $1 million in small pledges in a single day. But obviously there is some serious money from wealthy individuals in there too. I am not saying this to smear Obama; I respect him as a person and as a politician. But he is no underdog. He has money, smart lawyers, and serious media connections. So does Clinton, but the point is that she is portrayed as teh machine person, and IMO that is a two way street. I suppose I find the fawnign media coverage of Obama a bit much too. He is a good speaker but he is not Gandhi – Gandhi never had $138M in campaign funds!
366
SimonH
yeah, that cracked me up too! LOL
Yes, Obama wins in ‘large’ cities since it is predominately African-Americans who (rightly or wrongly) populate the poorer inner-city counties in America.
This is historically an Anglo-saxon phenomenon where the inner city is populated by the poor and the rich enjoy open spaces in the suburbs. This is beginning to change in the Australian context, with inner-city living becoming more and more popular and trendy with the rich and well educated elite, as you have probably noticed.
KR 371, I am sure you endorse the Bush victory in 2000, then. Themz the roolz.
“Stuff what the voters think, it’s the electoral college/delegates that matter.”
No. Delegates are NOT bound in any legal sense to vote for their candidate. Only a moral sense. Given delegates are generally hardcore supporters of their candidate, they will, of course, in all likelyhood vote for them at the convention.
But if the candidate drops out, they are less likely to do what they said.
I don’t have a source for this right now, but if anyone else does and feels like backing me up???
371
Kirribilli Removals
sorry, digit dyslexia that’s 1, of course
The net effect of today is to cast doubt on Obama’s ability to win when it counts (even with the vast majority of media, organisational superiority and a massive cash advantage).
“YES WE POSSIBLY MIGHT (BUT EVEN IF WE DON’T WE MIGHT GET CLOSE ON TECHNICALITIES)!”
Doesn’t have nearly as catchy a ring to it…
Max you are right.
Also, remember there is such a thing as faithless electors in the electoral college too. They are not bound to vote for anyone.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faithless_elector
#376
what your saying is correct
“YES WE POSSIBLY MIGHT (BUT EVEN IF WE DON’T WE MIGHT GET CLOSE ON TECHNICALITIES)!”
LOL LOL
375
John Ryan
God love ‘im eh? Coz we sure don’t! LOL
Hillary will try and beat this up, but essentially, by winning with such a thin margin in Texas she’s essentially done for. Bill said it, she needed to win the two big states, and not by a thin margin, but near 20 points.
Simple matter is, (looking at figures out now), she didn’t.
It’s not what Dubbya said that matter here, it’s what her Hubby said.
Yes mathematically it’s still difficult for Clinton to win. But Obama will soon have to note that he is behind in VOTES (these are cast by real human beings). If he and his campaign think they know better than the voters and want to destroy the party, then “yes they will”….
Max and JR
On delegate voting rules, you are right it is not legally obliged to vote for the chosen candidate, but Wikipedia had this to say about the pledged delegates:
“Pledged delegates reflect the preferences of the voters, but are not actually legally bound to vote for the candidate they are pledged for. However, since candidates may remove delegates who they feel may be disloyal, pledged delegates generally vote for the candidate they represent.”
Hey Socrates,
Re yr 303 and 356– it’s true that surrounding results were rolling in. But outer suburban or satellite areas (i.e. surrounding counties to the county representing the core of the city) ain’t that strong for Obama. On average, they broke about evenly. What’s happened is simply that:
a) the urban-fringe and rural population of a place like Texas is vastly larger than the population within official city limits– so if you only win the city-limits and lose everywhere else, you’ll lose. As a Sydneysider, it’s hard to kick the mindset that if you won Sydney 60:40 in a 2-horse race, it would barely matter what occurred in the rest of NSW.
b) stronger Obama booths came in first in the ‘true’ urban areas, plus excellent Obama pre-polling organisation left fewer Obama voters in the cities to cast their votes on 4 March. So the armies of votes seemingly waiting to be counted for Obama, had actually already been cast & counted.
The fact that Obama is weak for Hispanic voters v Clinton doesn’t say a lot about how he’d do with those voters v McCain. However, a substantial problem for him seems to be his appeal in rural and regional areas: the ‘latte set’ argument. You’d expect that McCain’s folksy appeal and personal story will play very well there.
Adam,
on you’re writings here
i’d say you’re more centre-left on things that concern YOU
and firm Right on things that don’t.
KR 382
Much as we share a common enemy (former PM JWH) we obviously don’t agree between Obama and Clinton. Either way though, please quote accurately. This was Bill Clinton’s quote on Hillary’s chances from USA Today:
“If she wins Texas and Ohio I think she will be the nominee, if you don’t then I don’t think she can. It’s all on you,” Clinton told the audience right at the top of his speech.
He did not say she had to win both states by 20 points; she just had to win them. Therefore I think the logic of your post is flawed.
Socrates – KR lost the plot sometime between Howard’s defeat and Obama’s win in Iowa. He hasn’t been the same since unfortunately.
http://blogs.smh.com.au/whitehouse08/archives/2008/03/a_tale_of_two_wars_republicans.html
“Twice, in New Hampshire and today in Ohio and Texas, Barack Obama, with the wind at his back, his momentum surging, had the chance to put Hillary Clinton away – and he failed. Notwithstanding the enormous assets (enthusiasm, money, grassroots organisation) of the movement he spawned – based on the appeal of fundamental change wrought by a unique American politician – he has only been able to wrestle Senator Clinton to an effective draw. Her base held; her appeal grew. Even though Obama maintains a lead in pledged delegates, he cannot get to the magic number of delegates to clinch the nomination from where he stands tonight. And neither can she.
So the issue is: has Obama peaked, and will Clinton’s support now regenerate at Obama’s expense?”
Socrates,
if Obama wins more delegates out of Texas, do you class that as a win for Hillary?
don’t forget Texas is a primary and a caucus.
the nom is decided on delegates. Not votes.
Harry, yes that’s probably true.
Tom Lehrer’s defintion of a liberal: “Ten degrees to the left of center in good times, ten degrees to the right of center if it effects them personally.”
I’m not going to Europe for a holiday, by the way, I have a job in Berlin. If I’m lucky there’ll be a German election this year, which I’m told the Iron Chancelloress will win in a canter.
Have a good trip Adam, I’ve always enjoyed your posts (even when you were wrong)
and have missed seeing you around these parts lately.
Whatever it is your off to do, enjoy and please pop in now and again.
the most interesting part of clinton’s wins are that in other primaries where Obama had clawed back the lead, he ended up winning. This time, momentum seems to have stalled a little. I suppose the fact that these were must-win primaries for Clinton helped get her supporters out
Both are terrific candidates and either would make a great president, i just hope the losing candidate doesnt damage the other too much in this close fight
i’ve been out of town and had no updates,
what’s the story????
Smile @ 354: “My recommendation would be to cut losses now, put up Clinton…”
You seem to think that there is someone appointed as Grand Poo-Bah of the Democrats, who can walk around like a cricket captain in a school game, and tap one of them on the shoulder. Some news: this IS the process by which the Democrats decide who to “put up”. It isn’t just a panto show for our entertainment.
If what you mean is that the candidate with a delegate lead, and who is pretty much 100% certain to have a delegate lead going into the convention, should withdraw… then good luck to you. I’d love to hear about a precedent for that.
The race will be too close delegate-wise and will need to be decided by the super delegates.
They should vote along the lines of who wins the most votes (yes, you know those things that people cast in elections?) In this case, Clinton will win and Obama will have to pull out in advance of the convention or otherwise fracture the party and hand the presidency to John McCain.
So elite commentators….do we think the Dem nomination will now go all the way to a bloodbath at the convention? What will be the eventual outcome?
The only way I can see it stopping before then is if Obama wins Pennsylvania, something you wouldn’t bet the house on. The only other out I can see is some kind of Kirribilli agreement for a Clinton-Obama ticket with the DRC agreeing to endorse Obama and not Clinton in 2012. Obama could get started on a lot of his agenda from the VP position.
Just a crazy thought…
#394
jen
Its not everything we were hoping for – but our guy is still the champion – however – the dark side are claiming a decisive victory and the media will play this for all its worth so long as the man has a sizeable delegate lead.
Jen, here’s the lastest from the NYT live blog. The fat lady ain’t sung yet!
1:38 p.m. | Wrapup: Well, Caucus readers, all the networks and The Times have called Texas for Mrs. Clinton. But results from the Texas caucuses (the second part of that Texas two-step) are still a little fuzzy. Only about 13 percent of those results are in, and Mr. Obama is ahead 54 percent to 46 percent. As predicted earlier, Mrs. Clinton could win the popular vote while Mr. Obama wins more delegates. (Stay tuned to the nytimes.com throughout the wee hours for the latest results.)
Not to rain on the Clinton parade. Her win in Ohio was bigger than anyone projected. And the fact that she won the popular vote in Texas is testament to a stronger campaign than she appeared to be running even a week ago.
The dynamics of this race have totally flipped again, and Mrs. Clinton will be carrying on to Pennsylvania. We’re headed that way too.
395 SimonH:
Howard Dean and Al Gore will tap the looser (in total nation-wide vote numbers) on the shoulder and ask them to pull out (probably after Pennsylvania).
If Obama decides to stay on for vanity, then that will be disaster for the party. We can’t make this point clear enough.
SimonH, thank you for the preachy tone, Mr Teacher Sir.
I was clearly not suggesting there is a Grand Poo-Bah. But there certainly are insider strategists and heavyweights on the DNC. They will have a say in how this plays out. This non-panto-show also has super delegates and potentially the seating of Florisda and Michigan delegates to throw into the mix.
Obama now at 56-44 in TX caucuses, 22% in.
John Ryan,
pls explain your formula that will make it close on delegates?
I suspect Obama is in some trouble, although I think he’d make a great president. He has never won a large state except his own. Clinton has won a number of small states.
The popular vote can be calculated in various ways, (with or without Florida and Michigan, with or without caucus votes thrown in, with or without the uncontested states between Super-Tuesday and today thrown in) and Clinton may lead in the popular vote by Denver.
Both candidates will reach Denver without a decisive majority of delegates and they’re both going to be asking the superdelegates for the nomination. It’s hard to see how Obama can possibly put together a rationale for superdelegates to nominate him if he’s trailing in popular votes.
There are also a couple of policy traps for Obama. Sometime between now and Denver he’s going to have to say something slightly more apposite than Yes, we can. After the last few days, I doubt he can get away with saying Yes, we Canada.
The Canada kerfuffle does not say all that much about Obama’s platform. It does say quite a lot about why on earth his advisers would even think of giving the Harper government a chance to do a favour for their Republican allies south of the border.
It’s going to be an interesting ride.
John Ryan, Hillary may win Penn, but Obama will crush her next Sat in Wyoming and Tues in Miss. In May, Obama should crush Hillary in N Carolina and Oregon, with Indiana, Kentucky and W Virginia toss-ups. There can be no doubt that Obama will win the pledged delegate count. Therefore, Obama should get nominated.
On this we agree – and just between you and me – its already in motion.
403 HarryH
100 delegates out of 4000 is close HarryH.
And certainly not enough to claim a mandate to override the wishes of voters in the Democratic primaries.
http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/
This is the current totals (with only half of Ohio and Texas tallied). Clinton will be in front by 300,000 to 500,000 votes once finally tallied. If you think voters don’t matter, then you’re entitled to that view. I just don’t agree.
396 – John Ryan
It is extremely likely that despite today, Obama will have the most delegates, states and popular vote come the convention.
Looking ahead Wyoming and Mississippi are both favoured to be won by Obama.
Of course, Clinton is favoured to win Pennsylvania.
407 – You cannot possibly use that site as the numbers include Michigan and Florida.
Are you suggesting that Obama would have gotten 0 of the popular vote in Michigan?
Maybe the Convention will be deadlocked and will turn its eyes to The Man Who Should be President Right Now, Albert Arnold Gore, Jr. It’s happened before.
Clinton is favoured to win Pennsylvania, Indiana, West Virginia and Puerto Rico
(they have more delegates than Oregon).
She will be in front in popular vote – unless of course you think that Michigan and Florida are not part of a America. Perhaps they belong in Canada and Cuba respectively?
411 – John Ryan
For reasons stated many times previously, Michigan and Florida do not count as they were punished for breaking DNC rules.
I ask again, are you misleading everyone by calculating a popular vote based on Obama receiving 0 votes for Michigan?
Asanque
Agreed on odds for Obama in Wyoming and Mississipi and Clinton in Pennsylvania but they also illustate the issue; Pennsylvania (12 M) has more population than Wyoming (500,000) and Mississipi (3 million) combined. I think it would be quite hard for Obama to be ahead on the popular vote if Clinton does keep winnign all the big states. Its a bit like saying here that a win in Tasmania and South Austalia beats a win in Victoria.
US State populations are listed here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_population
The decent thing to do would be to re-run the Dem primaries in MI and FL in June. It’s perfectly legal, and the state legislatures would fall all over themselves to pass the necessary bills.
How Clinton won TX and OH
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/horseraceblog/2008/03/how_clinton_won_tx_and_oh.html
Asanque, give it a rest.
Clinton is still in front even if one gives Obama the benefit of the doubt and adds the “uncommitted” Michiganers to his tally.
414 – Adam
I 100% agree with you here.
John Ryan,
Obama is at least 150 pledged delegates in front,not 100, even after tonight.
That IS a lot in a Party that calls itself The Democrats.
I agree ,after tonight, that the dance will go on now.
But Hillary still can’t win without the Democratic Party being very undemocratic.
thats not to say Hillary’s side won’t try, but Dean,Gore,Richardson,Biden,Edwards etc aren’t that silly.
i don’t think lol
If necessary, the DNC is looking at re-holding the Florida and Michigan primaries for your benefit, Asanque. Even so, Clinton would win them both again.
413 – Socrates
In regards to the popular vote – someone has done the maths for us
From the article above:
If she does eliminate this lead – I think she will have an argument that she can take to the super delegates. That’s not to say it is the more compelling argument – Obama will have a good one of his own. The point is that if she catches him in the vote count that includes Florida, she will have an angle on victory – and she took a big step toward catching him last night.’]
JR,
The elections in Michigan and Florida were held on the basis that they weren’t going to count. You can’t count them now.
It would be like saying (after the event) that a pre-season game should count for points in the NRL or AFL. Just not on.
If Florida and Michigan are so crucial (and perhaps they are), the contests there should be re-run.
Honestly, it isn’t rocket science, is it?
I’m looking back on the predictions. Please correct me if I’m wrong but only Smile tipped a Clinton win in Texas (51/49) so right on the money. And only one person tipped Clinton to win Ohio by 55/45, which was the greatest margin chosen. False modesty prevents me from revealing the name. And there’s no way Clinton’s gonna concede.
The basic arithmetic means a very horrible, drawn-out loss by Billary with another Repug in the White House. Looks like she’s going to pick up about 20 delegates over the day, including the Texas Caucus. Enough to keep going but not enough to catch up.
419 – John Ryan
I hope that Florida and Michigan are held again. That would be the democratic answer.
If Hillary wins as a result, so be it
414
Adam
I have to agree, the entire process will turn toxic if neither can win with Supers. This may be the only way.
Just for the record, Hillary doesn’t want them held again.
She wants the current results to stand.
That gives you some indication on Hillary’s viewpoints on a democratic solution.
As I said previously, the Superdelegates will go with the will of the people. They will pledge their allegiances well before the convention so that the loosing candidate can drop out. Al Gore, Howard Dean et al. will do the shoulder tapping if it comes to that.
Again, if Obama stays on for vanity, then it’s McCain in the White House.
Ron,
Those rose coloured glasses are actually binocular specs which you put on the wrong way. So, something you thought was close up is actually a long, long, long way away.
In fact, I don’t see how Hillary could justify pulling out before Penn.
Her donors would say, if your March 4 result (which was pretty much at the very best end of expectations) wasn’t good enough to keep going, what were you doing taking our money before March 4?
She’s going on all right, and quite possibly right to the end.
JR – 426
For the sake of the Democrats, you better hope Hillary drops out.
If one candidate had the most pledged delegates and the popular vote, then it would be clear cut.
Where one candidate has the most pledged delegates and the other the popular vote, then all hell will break loose, no matter who wins.
Obama wins nomination then McCain wins Whitehouse. This is the reality.
If Obama wins Dem nomination there will be 90% racist Repub turnout in November – not to mention all the other ammo against Obama. And the irony is, Clinton would win easily if nominated. Obama, if he gets the nomination, will have done it largely by black support being marshalled in the primaries. The representation of blacks in the wider electorate (come November) is, say, 13% – way lower than his support in the primary races. Not to mention the dubious caucuses where Obama has swept – what an undemocratic system ripe for coercion this is!
A black Democrat will not be the first black president. The first black president will have to come from the Republicans.
Come November and Obama will be long odds against and the Dems will look at each other with disbelief.
After 8 years of a halfwitted and dangerous Republican did we let this one get away. For the Dems, nominating Obama is sheer folly but they can’t see it.
Unlikely, but I hope Clinton storms back and gives the world a chance.
A case could be made for seating the FL delegates, since there was a genuine three-way contest there (Clinton 50, Obama 33, Edwards 14). There is no case for seating the MI delegates, but worse things have happened at conventions, both Dem and Rep. I was surprised at the time that Obama agreed to take his name off the MI ballot given that Clinton didn’t do so. He should have foreseen this situation.
Ok
so who THF is it??
431 – Adam
He tried to take his name of both to circumvent this argument, however was prevented by Florida election rules.
As you noted, a case could be made for seating FL delegates. The same case could have then be made for seating MI delegates had Obama been listed.
Now its far more murky.
McCain’s only strength is foreign policy/national security. This is Obama’s biggest weakness. That is a dangerous match up. If the campaign switches to national security, Obama has no hope. Hillary cancels this out – and turns the debate to the economy where she will trounce McCain in places like Ohio (this will give her the White House alone, let alone the rest of the rust-belt)…
No wonder so many Republicans are voting for Obama. They wont have this chance at least in the closed race in Pennsylvania.
430 – Bryce
You run the same argument as Adam.
Which is a fair point of view, although I disagree.
All I can suggest if you are so confident, is that you take the great odds on McCain, because you will clean up come November.
Adam –
for all our differences I would really like a brief synopsis, as I have to BBQ the salmon and haven’t got time to trawl back through the myriad of views. Straight up numbers needeed.
Would be much appreciated.
bryce – 430
As has been mentioned a few times before, sexism may play a more powerful part than racism come November. Unfortunately the true extent of either can only be judged with hindsight and not before the Nov election.
434 – JR
I believe that either Democrat will thrash McCain.
However, if Clinton is nominated, as Adam said, it will be by way of the convention which will be a bloody messy war.
This will irreparably damage her standing amongst Democrats and make a close contest of it.
Hillary has been running the ‘experience’ argument which she will lose against McCain.
She will also lose Foreign policy/national security.
She will likely win ‘Economy’ though.
Seriously folks,
What has broken Obamas momentum? Probably the 3 am telephone ads and genuine questions about his expereince and judgement. McCain will have taken notice and this will certainly be the theme of the Republican campaign.
The Democrats actually have an opportunity to create a generation of Presidencies. Why not give the nomination to Hillary. let her choose her own VP (probably someone like Richardson) However, give Obama a real job say as Secretary of State where his performance can be properly assessed.
Then he will be in an ideal position to take the nomination in either 2012 or 2016. Obama is a young man and the Democrats could afford to warehouse him.
Liklihood of this happening 20%
Will Rogers famous humorist and showman (and father of Kenny) said it best when he said “I belong to no organised Party, I am a Democrat.”
NO case can be made for seating Fl and Mi before the candidate is settled. NONE at all.
The DNC themselves ruled it a no contest.
They either make a decision on the candidate without Fl and Mi and THEN seat them
or
The have new elections in Fl and Mi IF BOTH candidates agree.
A brief synopsis: The Dems are deadlocked and in grave danger of handing the election to McCain despite eight years of Bush disasters.
436 – Jen
I won’t profess to be Adam, but I stand by my analysis of today at 282.
In terms of numbers, Obama will win more delegates in Texas, Hillary in Ohio.
Vermont and Rhode Island will cancel each other out.
End result: Net gain of 10-20 pledged delegates to Hillary.
#388 – ’cause KR has a sore jaw for too many LOLs, lost his popcorns and now too many digit dyslexia. Such is life for the leader of the pack.
I agree, HarryH @ 440.
As I said some weeks ago the Republican solution of halving the delegates was a far better solution than the Dems came up with. Now it is biting the Dems.
GG,
The people would have gladly given Hillary the nom if she wasn’t such a warmonger.
Simple.
and IMHO i don’t think the 3am ad did the trick.
I think Michelle Obama made the big mistake so far by saying she wasn’t proud of America. I understand her sentiment and i agree with what she was saying but it was a silly thing to say at this time. Things take a week or so to seep thru, unlike the media would like to make us think. It is in their interest to say ads work.
Having missed all the fun today -
Looking at the results so far- nothing has changed. Results within MOE of the polls. Obama’s surge cut Clinton’s lead of 20 points a few weeks ago significantly, especially in Texas. Hillary might pick up a nett few delegates, but Obama will still be 120 or so in front. Hillary will get a few more in Pennsylvania, Obama some in Nth Carolina, and the others will probably be split somewhere near 50/50, and most are so small it won’t matter much.
So what do the super delegates do? Decide to translate a mere slowing of the Obama surge into a win for Clinton? I don’t think so. He couldn’t keep such a big wave from breaking, but he’s still in front of it. All he has to do now is ride the whitewater to shore. (Although Whitewater used to be one of Hillary’s skills)
Reading over today’s posts I see a lot more Clinton supporters around than usual – great!. Might result in some good debating after dinner, and someone to answer the ‘why is Hillary the better Dem candidate?’ questions to which I have been seeking answers for a couple of weeks.
KR & Asangue – The money’s in the bank from the McCain bets!
Jen – Make sure you don’t overcook the salmon – should still be transparent in the centre when you take it off the BBQ!
The Democrats had better organise re-running the Florida and Michigan primaries soon, or (as I’ve mentioned previously) run the risk of pro-Clinton Dems in both states suing to have the delegates seated:
http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=12845
“Meanwhile, Ohio Gov. Ted Strickland, who campaigned vigorously for Clinton and is one of her strongest supporters, flashed the nuclear option. Warming up supporters at Clinton’s victory rally, Strickland shouted to cheers, “Let us go to Michigan and Florida.” Clinton won both states, but they were penalized by the Democratic Party for holding their nominating contests too early and stripped of all of their delegates. Candidates didn’t campaign in either state and Obama wasn’t even on the ballot in Michigan”.
“The issue was supposed to be moot because the Democratic race was supposed to be locked up by now, but with the race dragging on it remains a prominent and barbed issue: Should Clinton be able to rewrite the rules in the middle of the process and allow Michigan and Florida delegates to be seated at the convention even though she agreed to a system under which they would not? Should voters in two major states be denied their right to have their voices heard? What legal issues are raised by having new primaries in the two states?”
#430
Correction – this is your reality!
#432
Jen
Close your eyes – trust your instincts – and smile.
Adam @ 311 -
I am a reasonable barometer of slightly-centre-of-left opinion
Isn’t that where Kevin Andrews says the Lib are? So when you say you’re off to Europe that isn’t a euphemism for a Liberal Party orientation weekend for new candidates, is it?
Smile @ 447,
I believe that any process that deliberately disenfranchises voters is wrong. The process that allowed the Florida and Michigan delegates to be excluded is fatally flawed.
Whether the Dems re-run the Primaries in those States or some other solution is developed, the elders of the Party must find way for all Stes to be represented at the Convention.
Otherwise the candidate that eventually emerges will be tainted.
GG @ 451,
Sure but if you’re going to change the rules halfway through the game then everyone has to agree to it.
Which only leaves a re-run, or (if Clinton won’t agree to a re-run) the status quo.
GG, aside from such considerations of principle, there is also the realpolitik that threatening a lawsuit could delay and/or cast into doubt the outcome of the Dem’s conference. It’s like a gun to the head of the superdelegates – either decide to put Clinton up, let the Florida/Michigan delegates sit (which might amount to the same thing) or be mired in legal controversy and lose more time to settle a candidate to fight the Republicans…
I repeat what I said a few weeks ago, I simply cannot see this going to the convention. Not a chance in hell will Dean and the party establishment allow the Democrat candidate just two months to launch a campaign. McCain will have a double digit lead by then, and if it gets really bad that number could very easily have a two in front of it.
Having said that, I can no longer see a viable way in which this will be all over before Pennsylvania, or even after that. The only potential way forward is with Obama pulling out for the good of the party, or Clinton being forced out by a surge of superdelegates (100+) jumping as one on the Obama ship.
So who would have the better chance of winning? I’d respect Adam’s view more if he came out and admitted he was wrong about the Obama surge, but he hasn’t yet. Having said that, I tend to agree though with the assessment that Hillary can fight off the attacks from the right a lot easier, because there is very little dirt remaining that hasn’t yet been thrown at her. Obama is fresh meat. However, the problem is that her unfavourable’s are consistently in the mid 40’s: people who will NOT vote for her under any circumstances. She is also only going to win if the superdelegates overrule the pledged delegate count, and by doing so will piss a LOT off people in the party off, including many Obama supporters which she will need in November, as the middle will flock to McCain. She might have had a chance to take the fight to independents if she had the time, but she won’t get that.
I think Obama would have had the best shot at the nomination. However, he now will need to endure at LEAST another month of attacks from both sides. Meanwhile, McCain can enjoy this time to shore up the middle ground as the right will fall in line with the nomination secure. President-elect McCain will start to show up to events, which potential candidates Obama and Clinton bitch it out.
/ramble
Harry H,
Michelle Obama’s gaffe could very well be another reason for the emerging doubts. I am certain there are a number of factors but from afar the 3am ad certainly seemed to hit its mark.
tha salmon is on and so i have about 40 seconds -
Obama/ Hillary??
Like most Americans I want the 10 second analysis.
#455
Obama
Junior senator:
on what basis ? ( 5 seconds)
GG @ 439 -
AFAIK, Kenny Rogers is not related to Will Rogers who died in a plane crash 3 years before Kenny was born.
Dear Dr. Adam, this is one of my fundamentals. Probably, the most important one. This one is something that is dear our heart, well for those who are on our side of politics anyway (slightly-centre-of-left). I have not seen or heard been discussed at great length. This is the “IT’S TIME” factor.
It’s time for a woman to the next POTUS, as simple as that. I must admit that my conviction was sorely tested by the Obama phenomenon. At one point, I was afraid that it is easier for a good man (like Obama) to transcend racism than for a good woman (like Hillary) to transcend sexism.
But today events show that the American voters are slowly and surely come to their senses and waking up to the fact that Hillary is up to the job as POTUS and she has been unfairly treated like the way many societies treated women. For a man like Obama, he only has to overcome the character and competency test. But for a woman politician like Hillary, she has to pass not only the character and competency test, but also (being polite here) the “look and feel” test (for my IT friends on this blog). Or to be crude, in the immortal words of one Channel 9 news director, she has to pass the “F***kability” test. She’s been through hell and still standing. The last few weeks, she was on her own and she’s done good.
I think the biggest mistake that Hillary’s campaign made was to put forward Wildman Bill along side her too early. She was in his shadow in a way. It’s good to see her on her own on the stage today.
I stick to my prediction from way back that Obama and Hillary will end up about 50 PDs difference. So the SDs have to decide. I think the Dem Establishment will make Obama an offer that he could not refuse. Obama will be offered the Veep and Hillary will only serve one term. Sound familiar? The Dream Team will then smash McCain and the Repugs into pieces. How good is that!
Sometimes there are things in life that cannot be explained, defy logic and analysis. This is one of them, it’s time for a woman to be the next POTUS. Obama, he is not a messiah, just a naughty boy, Lady first.
455 Jen – Hillary the battle today, Obama the war.
#457
Integrity.
jen,
Obama failed to finish Hillary off today. Her results were significantly better than most people’s predictions.
His delegate lead is pretty much unchanged but she’ll now go on at least as long as Pennsylvania (April 22) and probably beyond.
It looks like a bit of a momentum shift to her, but whether it’s too little too late remains to be seen.
459 – The Finnigans
Certainly your predictions are
http://www.slate.com/id/2185278/
Here is the calculator.
Please show me your maths as to how Hillary will end up about 50 PD’s apart.
Thanks
#462
Just another example of a rehash of the Clinton media trash pipeline.
#463 – maths is for the academics and politics is for the people.
junior senator,
Nothing to do with any “Clinton media trash pipeline”.
Just the facts as I saw them.
If you have a problem with what I said, say why.
If you cannot articulate your problem, then probably best to keep quiet.
Just for your information.
(excluding Florida, Michigan and Edwards)
For Clinton to be 51 PD’s behind Obama.
She must win every single contest from this point on by 55 to 45, with the exception of Pennsylvania which she must win 60 to 40.
#465
process is the machinery for the politicians and the structure of the process is grounded on maths
Mayoferal @ 458,
One of those amazing pieces of trivia I have carried around in my brain with me for years and its wrong?
Cheers.
465 – the Finnigans
Let me guess.
You don’t specialise in maths either, you specialise in miracles.
#470 – my “miracles” so far have all materialised!!
Oh and my calculations at 467 – presumed Clinton would win Texas 53-47, and she would win 11 more pledged delegates.
This is obviously not the real life scenario, where Obama will win more pledged delegates in Texas.
asanque @ 467,
I think today will ultimately turn out to be “too little too late” for HRC. Your calcs are similar to mine.
But she’s now got a narrative that will keep her going till Penn and probably beyond. And the Florida and Michigan issue won’t go away without a fair bit of noise being made, and possibly a re-vote.
471 – The Finnigans
The problem with miracles are that they are unable to be scientifically verified and are unreliable.
Give me maths anyday
Look – in all honesty if Hillary ends up the candidate then this will all be history and hopefully she will demolish the old man McCain. But … I am still hopeful that all the conservatives including her, are swept away in a renaissance tide, and so I am still hoping for Obama.
also – she’s benefitted from the fear and ‘experienced’ campaign. Will it gather momentum , or is it a momentary swing back to what is familiar?
Finnigans,
Next Iraqi child who dies….i’m sure his/her mum will be so glad the gender divide has been broken.
it isn’t her gender that has stopped Hillary, it is her FULL support for this damn war.
jen,
Another angle:
The more traction the Clinton “experience” line gets, the better it is for McCain.
This is going to be a fascinating few weeks.
446
jaundiced view
About sums it up, she still cannot win, and all the hoopla in the world does not change the facts. (Don’t you love the way the facts are ignored for the spin, all the while heaping it on the opposition as ‘all spin’! I love that! LOL)
Yep, money to collect on McCain (and many thank$$!)
Now, pass the popcorn…the show’s not finished yet.
When Obama wins Mississippi on Saturday the talk about “momentum” will swing again just as ignorantly as it’s swung today. The talk will be about “Obama’s on the rise again” – even though Obama was always going to win Mississippi and Clinton was always going to win Ohio and the only thing that’s changes is that a poll trend in Texas that would have seen Obamba win the state by 2% was stalled and he lost it by 4%.
I’d like to see what the SDs do in the next week. Will they hold their fire? Will Bill Richardson follow up with his promise and endorse the candidate with the most pledged delegates (Obama). And if does, will others follow? Continued erosion of her SD lead combined with a solid win to Obama in Missippi will blow the perception of momentum shift away.
#475 – Miracle, isn’t that what Obama is peddling? Oh Yes, he got a better name for it, it’s called Hope.
476
jen
I wouldn’t be inclined to call Hillary ‘conservative’, but she’s certainly tarnished over Iraq and the years of batting down Bill’s conquests. Given the massive machinery the Clintons have brought to this race, it’s surprising she’s still behind but unfortunate for the party that she wasn’t finished off today.
It’s now going to get very, very messy, and I think Obama will have to take the gloves off and go bare knuckle now. Pity, because he obvioulsy did not want to do this, but I think his hand will be forced now.
I respectfully disagree with those who say that HRC will only have a few net delegates to show for her good primaries on 04/03.
Ohio has 141 “pledged” delegates (delgates tied to the popular vote). So far, they have been allocated 62-46, with 33 remaining. Presuming similar patterns, the end result should look like 80-61. 19 delegates to HRC.
Vermont’s 15 pledged delegates have already been allocated – 9-6 to Obama. 6 delegates to Obama.
RI’s 21 pledged delegates have broken 12-8, with 1 undecided (probably to HRC). 8 delegates to HRC.
As for Texas, it would be grossly undemocratic if the vote went HRC’s way (51-47 if I recall) and the 193 pledged delegates broke for Obama. I personally am predicting something like 102-91, given that HRC is already 8 delegates ahead, with 45 to go.
Overall, the gain to HRC from this round is 30-odd delegates. Given that Obama is 106 delegates ahead overall, that cuts his lead substantially.
And Pennsylvania, as a closed primary, is looking very good for HRC. It’s no secret that she does best among Democrat voters, rather than swingers. Overall, she is still in it, and as a result of this round, it is once again too close to call. The firewall appears to have worked, for Obama was stopped in his tracks.
Hillary coming back in the ‘undemocratic’ caucuses.
Its now 52 Obama to 48 Clinton
Matthew C,
Perhaps you are right. My sense is she is still in it (and indeed she can’t justify pulling out at this stage). Only just in it, though.
483 – Matthew Cole
Your analysis would be correct, but for the convoluted and strange delegate allocations in all 4 states. I’ll post later, but the lead will be nowhere near 30, unless Clinton storms home and wins the Texas caucuses.
Does anyone know why we are getting nothing new from the Texas caucus results? Have counters simply gone home for the night?
36% reported thus far, Obama is leading 52-48.
KR,
The truth is that Obama did not handle the questions about his experience and judgement.
What makes you think he will do it any better tomorrow or the next day. As I said the other day, “Obama is all sizzle and no sausage”.
My call is that this is the beginning of the end for Obama this time around.
If “Winner takes all” has been used – the PD count will be Hillary 1672 and Obama 1230. Not counting Michigan and Florida.
Andrew Landeryou has the following link to the Democrat convention site in Denver. Apparently, the Florida delegates are going to “the dance”.
http://demconwatch.blogspot.com/2008/03/florida-delegates-scrounging-for-denver.html
Wouldn’t it be good politics for the Dem’s to go with HC this time round and let her have a go… if she wins ‘which is likely’ – America has its first(Female Prez)
Assuming she doesn’t f#(kup too bad during her term…they then the get to run that nice Black guy who has done his time (by then) on the benches?
Jen, this is what Obama’s campaign manager had to say:
Mr. Axelrod signaled a fierce fight in the coming weeks. “What’s good for the goose is good for the gander,” he said.
…expect the glove to come off, and oh yeah, pass the popcorn! LOL
Boo! Mr Axelrod.
489 The Finnigans,
It’s an interesting stat, no doubt reflective of the fact that Hillary has win big States by relatively modest margins, whereas Obama has won smaller States by huge margins.
I really hope that Obama doesn’t do the nasty stuff, however Hill might win it. Safety will win over vision.
Bugger.
On 15 February I posted the following to-do list for HRC’s new campaign manager:
“1. Win Texas
2. Win Ohio
3. Get vaguely respectable results (say no worse than 40/60 in aggregate) in all the others up to March 11
4. Run a very negative (and effective) campaign against Obama incessantly in the six weeks between March 11 and April 22 (Pennsylvania)
5. Win Pennsylvania well
6. Win more than half the ones after Pennsylvania
7. Keep the super-delegates we already have
8. Win most of the “uncommitted” super-delegates
9. Don’t run out of money
10. Keep Bill quiet
To which could be added, according to taste:
11. Pray
and
12. Get the CV ready for the next job”
I still don’t think she’s going to win, however it is instructive to note that they have already accomplished 1, 2, 3 (probably), and they look like achieving 9 (probably) and 10.
The negative campaign over the next 6-7 weeks is going to be ugly, no doubt about it.
This is by no means over poll bludgers. Clinton’s resurgence will only strengthen her resolve to continue as long as possible.
495
jen
It’s funny, but the whole ’safety’ thing was straight out of the Karl Rove playbook, pushing the fear button and awaiting the Pavlovian response. It’s all too tawdry, but I guess that sums up much of Hillary’s political style. Apparently it worked with the ‘undecideds’ (read: disengaged unless it’s baseball), so I’m afraid he’s got no choice but to do the same.
So much for a ‘new politics’! It’s going to be stillborn.
#494 – More Interesting stats:
Obama Hillary
Popular Vote Total 12,638,258 12,051,663
Popular Vote (w/FL) 13,214,472 12,922,649
Popular Vote (w/FL & MI)* 13,214,472 13,250,958
“So much for a ‘new politics’! It’s going to be stillborn”
Sound of penny dropping. KR demonsrates moment of clarity without prolixity. LOL.
This tells us a bit about where the campaign is heading. http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/03/05/2181307.htm
The Democrats for the next month will tear themselves apart, arguing and personal mud- slinging, and who is responsible for such childish behaviour- the Clintons who should get out now. This is not Obamas’ fault.
Nonetheless one thing that the primaries are showing is that America is an extremely racist country.
Caucus Results TX:(NYT Politics Section)
Candidate…………………………Vote………%
Barack Obama……………….. 19,197…..55.3
Hillary Rodham Clinton………..15,480…..44.6
34% reporting | Updated 2:50 AM ET
Caucus Results TX
Candidate…………………..Vote………….%
Barack Obama……………..20,209………51.9
Hillary Rodham Clinton…..18,689……….48.0
36% reporting Updated 4:40 AM ET
Interesting. In almost 2 hours an extra 2% of the caucus vote has been counted and tabulated.
BHO gains ~1000 votes, while HRC gains ~3200 votes
Can anyone explain how this could be so?
No 502
Marky, Obama has significant support in the white community so I don’t think the USA is more racist than any other country.
Clearly if Michigan and Florida were done again, Clinton would easily win both and by handsome margins…i think the Hillary camp ought to duke it out with the DNC to get a rerun to break the deadlock after all neither candidate will have enough delegates to win other than with super delegates…
#495 – jen Says – [I really hope that Obama doesn’t do the nasty stuff] – are you starry eyes or naive? Obama is a politician and from Chicago, home of Al Capone. He got into bed with a developer called Rezko. Remember Wollongong developers?
BTW: A Nobel Prize economic professor on SBS just said the Iraq War is costing the USA $3 Trillion and the genesis of the SubPrime crisis.
The 2 candidates for the democratic nomination… need to forget egos
and reach a deal as to who will be the candidate….. otherwise they will spend the
next 3 months tearing each other apart and ensure a republican president for
the next 8 years
What? A reasonble post from Glen. No snide remarks or dig at the other side?? Genuine political discussion??
Can the Glen imposter please let Glen back on
I think it is highly significant that Obama made no mention of being ahead in the popular vote today, unlike after his last few wins, and despite the fact that he still is. As other bloggers have said, it now seems to be a real race for the popular vote. If Clinton is ahead in that race after PA, without counting the MI and FA votes, suddenly she has the better moral/democratic claim and I think she would get the nomination. If she falls just short but the difference is Florida, I really can’t see a realistic way out other than to hold revotes (if this hasn’t already happened by that stage). I suspect she would win revotes handily. So the real test may end up being her margin of victory in PA, assuming she wins it, and whether that takes her above Obama in the popular vote tally without counting MI votes.
Mick @ 507- I agree, the only winner from months of stouching between Obama and Clinton will be McCain
More on the $3T War. According to Gorgeous George, just $1T is enough to give 43million Uni scholarships. It makes you wonder, what is this Iraqi War is all about except fattening the military complex industry and GWB’s crony companies.
Finnigans @ 506 [He got into bed with a developer called Rezko. Remember Wollongong developers?]
How long is your bow Finnigans?
FYI, the whole sordid story so far:
Obama legitimately bought a house from a long-time supporter, Rezco, who was later found to have acted inappropriately in a completely different matter not involving Obama.
That’s as far from Wollongong as is Salem, Massachussets.
No 510
I disagree. McCain is looks old and tired and his policy platform is not too dissimilar from the current Bush administration.
If Ron Paul was the nominee, I’d be behind the conservatives wholeheartedly, but alas it is not so.
505 – Glen
As I said before. Reholding the primaries in Michigan and Florida would be fair.
Clinton is resisting this process and wants the results to remain as is.
You be the judge of just what she is scared of.
#512 – jv – I knew you dreamers would be defensive over any criticism of messiah Obama. Whereas Hillary is open season from top to bottom, north to south and whichever sideways. As JOK would sing “She’s tough”
Do these figures look familiar??
A political genius predicted these a month ago with a net gain of 16 delegates from today to Billary.
Ohio 46/ 53
Rhode Isl. 42/ 57
Texas 47/ 51
Vermont 55/ 44
The genius was Barack Obama. Today was just business as usual for The Candidate.
And two more wins in the next week to Obama.
Wyoming 60/40
Mississippi 62/38
Net gain nine delegates.
Ok, no takers yet from my query at 503.
If one clickes on the link, the only county where CAUCUS numbers are numericically significant is Bexar County, San Antonio. El Pso is a distant second.
All the other caucuses where HRC is ahead are for counties with a mere handful of caucus votes. So where did HRC find 3200 votes with only an extra 2% of the total caucus votes counted?
Something psephologically fishy seems to be occurring here. But I’d be happy if someone could demonstrate why my qualms are baseless.
http://politics.nytimes.com/election-guide/2008/results/states/TX.html
GP @ 504,
This page on Texas would seem to confirm your comments. Further down it gives a breakdown on the profile of the voters.
The other interesting number is that 62% of those who made up their mind in the last 3 days voted for Hillary. The 3 am ads must be in play here.
http://politics.nytimes.com/election-guide/2008/results/states/TX.html
Finnigans,
your post on the last page has me intrigued. Can you clarify for me please:
if Hillary Clinton was a man with the exact same policies, political experience etc as she has now, would you vote for that man over Barack Obama?
The Big States count far more than winning Red State territory that will not go Blue come November, that Clinton can win important and potential swing states like Florida (both names were on the ballot thus the result should stand), Ohio and like Pennsylvania (im assuming she’s got that in the bag) then its hard for the Democrat super delegates not to give it to Clinton in the end even if Obama has more pledged delegates.
If you cannot win big in big States other than your home State (Illinois) but you can win Alaska, Idaho, Oklahoma, Vermont, Iowa and Arkansas then i hardly think you can lay claim to the nomination, thus if Hillary wins the bigger States of Pennsylvania and Indiana and is still behind the Super delegates will go with Hillary, mind you had Obama won Texas and Ohio then they probably would have dumped Hillary. Her wins really cement her as the substance candidate who can win big in crucial swing States.
On the Republican side, McCain needs a good VP, thus he has not many options in reality, but a short list should include, Colin Powell, Condi Rice, Paul D. Ryan, Jr. (38 years of age House Member from swing State of Wisconsin), Mitt Romney is a possible candidate given his economic experience, or Gov. Tom Pawlenty of Minnesota.
Asanque i think it would be ‘fair’ to have a re-run of Michigan though since Obama wasn’t on the ballot but Florida had both names on the ballot no excuses there that decision should stand.
So Glen
Your contention is that the result should stand even though the DNC ruled the election invalid.
And both candidates pledged not to campaign.
On what grounds would you make that claim?
And more on the cold, hard realities of life. Pennsylvania is not going to win it for Billary. It has 158 delegates. Indiana and North Carolina have 72 and 115 respectively. Obama is predicted to win those by more than Billary is predicted to win Penn. Net gain to Obama of a couple of delegates.
One of the fundamentals of democracy is the secret ballot. The American caucuses do not have this feature and their outcomes cannot be considered to be democratic. Because of various other factors it cannot even be considered an accurate sample for an impending Presidential election.
Here’s an idea, next Federal election – neither party is allowed to campaign – you up for that?
523 – secret ballots are fundamental to democracy?
So when your elected MP’s go to Parliament and vote on bills – why is there discussion and open ballots?
#519 – No. Lady first followed by a black person will do me just fine. Having said that not any lady or any black. Hillary then Obama will do me just fine.
asanque neither of them campaigned in Vermont but Obama won that should we take that off him?
GG,
i bet the exit poll question only gave 1 time frame…3 days…ie: if you made up your mind in the last 3 days who do you pick.
media companies always push the importance of political ads because they are their cash cows.
i maintain that that 3am ad was fluff that everyone had heard before. Michelle Obamas comment that she wasn’t proud of America slowed Obama’s train a touch. Hillary’s win in Ohio was the dynamic victory and there was no 3am ad there.
Generic Person- yes Obama is getting white votes but not as many as he should be. And yes racism is strong throughout the world everywhere- agree.
Obama i think should be the Democrats candidate and do not care about his skin colour but unfortunately one thing is against him and that his colour, hopily his oratory skills and vision overcomes all this and shows that America is finally becoming progressive in its thinking.
515 Finnigans -[#512 - jv - I knew you dreamers would be defensive over any criticism of messiah Obama. ... JOK would sing “She’s tough”]
I agree she’s tough, but that won’t improve international relations without vision and a determination to stave off the US military/industrial vested interests and the New York je*ish collective.
There is only one chance among the 3 candidates, on everything we’ve seen on track records and policy, for an improved M East, and improved relations beteeen the US and Muslim states – and that chance is Obama.
Of course, it remains to be seen if he can succeed, but if he can make even some slight progress, it means a lesser chance of terrorism all around the world .
That isn’t dreaming, it’s a sober conclusion from looking as closely as possible for the best option to make the world safer. It’s not because he’s an orator – many flakes speak well. It’s because of his espoused positions on the main issues. Why would you pick Clinton to do the job required? She simply can’t make a difference, on the evidence, and neither (more obviously) can McCain.
Not only that, but JOK’s singing was usually a little off-key.
527 – Glen
Obama campaigned in Vermont.
Neither party pledged that campaigning in Vermont was not allowed.
The DNC did not suspend Vermont.
Do you have a point?
Harry H,
It is information that I take on face value. You are more sceptical. Good for you.
For two candidates with fairly similar policies, this nomination is hellishly divisive. The exit polls indicate large differences depending on:
Male vs female
Black vs white
Educated vs uneducated
Idealism vs pragmatism
Young vs old
Non-church vs church
It’s going to be an absolute bloodbath.
#530 – jv – Obama would be just the same, he would make no difference. The great satan system will consume him, the great satan system will never allow him or there will be another grassy knoll.
Finnigans,
How can you justify supporting Hillary JUST because she’s a woman. In posts on this page you have shown your disdain for the Iraq War. Hillary fully supports it and has even given the initial vote for the next war with Iran.
Barack Obama is not only saying he will stop THIS war, but that he will “CHANGE THE MINDSET” that brought it about.
If everything was equal and huge things weren’t at stake i too would vote to break a cieling such as “first woman” or “first black”.
But Hillary is as pro war as Bush or McCain….and you better believe that.
Finnigans – JOK’s song was “So Tough” (1958), so, tough.
And his first single was “You Hit the Wrong Note” – unfortunate 1st title for him.
asanque
re 525
I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you are being facetious.
HarryH he wont stop it he’ll make it WORSE!
I’d far rather the US had a woman President than a Black President, IMHO i dont think they are ready for the latter yet!
533
Diogenes
I was thinking pretty much the same thing: there are two groups of Democrats, pretty evenly divided, and two very good candidates without much between them on policy, and only one nominated winner.
Now that Hillary’s campaign has stooped to fear mongering (I mean, resurrecting old cold war mindsets, for cryin’ out loud!) the floodgates could get opened, and considering the vast amount of bilge that Hillary has got stored in the tank, a few well placed shots could see a very big mess spilled out across the airwaves.
Pass the popcorn…
#535 – HH – If I am not wrong, our dear leader Mr. 70% also sort of “supported” the Iraq War at some stage. I know she voted to support the War, but she was not the POTUS.
GP at 513.
Yeah, Ron Paul – now there’s a guy that believes in small government. Just small enough to fit into a womens uterus.
Whenever I see that bloke speak, I expect him to start ranting about UFOs.
Anyways, some choice for President.
Under Clinton, the US would become more divided and insular. Under McCain, if it moves it will be bombed, if it doesnt it will be pushed first and under Obama no one knows WTF would happen, but Kumbaya would probably make an appearance somewhere.
What a sad state of affairs.
Clinton actually reminds me of John Howard – all too eager to put her own ambitions before the good of the party, and after the malfeasance of Bush, the country as well.
And I dont mean the usual Obama cheer leading reasons, but what she has chosen to do in order to give herself a chance to win.
The advertising angle she has chosen to run to get herself back in the game is destroying Obamas chances for the White House if he eventually gains the Dem nomination, yet Obama has at least been smart enough thus far not to go down that road.
Dean and Gore need to put something together to stop this nonsense or everyone loses.
Diogenes- spot on, meantime unfortunately the crinkly superfrie- McCain watches it all with a huge grin.
Pity one of these candidates did not stand in 2004 instead of the hopeless and mundane , that is how bad he was as i have forgotten his name please help someone.
537 – It’s time
Whilst caucuses can be argued to be undemocratic, its not as if both parties weren’t well aware of the rules before this process began. To start calling foul now, is simply bad sportmanship.
There is also an argument that caucuses are a better way to elect candidates. Any system that promotes active debate amongst people committed enough to argue for their candidate, seems to promote a more educated class of vote.
538 – Obama will make a worse mess?
I’d find it hard for anyone to argue that if Obama had been in power rather then Bush in the last 8 years, that the world would be in the mess it is in now.
Three Trillion dollars.
No 539
I suspect this is more than simple fear mongering KR. The reality is that Obama has shown himself to be a wonderful orator, but beyond his message of hope and unity, which are vague in and of themselves in terms of real policy, it is difficult for average Americans to judge his true ability to lead, especially in times of war.
Such an advertisement demonstrates Clinton’s experience in spades.
Possum for once i agree with you, Gore would now be an excellent choice.
Nonetheless the West Wing scenario is slowly coming forth- overall i hope.
544 – What exactly does Clinton have in terms of experience to lead a war?
MarkyMarky – we can wallow in our pessimism together! My shout, what are you drinking?
Just promise that when you get tanked you wont start singing the Internationale
No 541
Ron Paul is consistently misrepresented, yet everyone fails to recognise that he is the most principled senator in congress.
There’s another lurking factor here: pure boredom.
Let’s face it, the primary season has been in full swing for two months now. It was chugging along slowly for a month or two before that. That’s fine, because during that time the script has changed multiple times, candidates have dropped out and we’ve had new stories to gorge on.
But now what? In seven days time, we are going to have nothing new for six weeks. If a superdelegate hasn’t fallen in line or switched camp by then, they are highly unlikely to do so in the following six weeks. Numbers aren’t going to change. There’s no Republican side dish story to examine when you’ve stomached all you can.
There are just two candidates – the same two who have been there for the past month now – on the same side of the political compass. They’ve had 20 debates all up, three together. They support maybe 80-90% of the same things, the few differences that remain are minor and I would imagine completely irrelevant in the long term scheme of things.
Everything has been exhausted, from understanding the delegate system to superdelegates to popular votes to states won and lost… every angle of the race has been explored. All that’s left is character assassination.
And while this is happening… the media reports how the Republican Nominee is getting in touch with his people.
So what’s left? Well, as finnigans points out… one is a women, one is black. Joy.
Experience is always good to use as an argument or scare tactic but in the end it means little as long as you have an excellent team of experienced people surrounding you and this no doubt will be the case with Obama. Additionally you must also have the intelligence, judgement and forthsight to think laterally and Obama possesses such qualities.
There is a theory that Billary is more than happy to trash Obama’s chance to beat Macca by attacking him.
1. She likes Macca so its no great loss. It’s not like Thompson getting in
2. She can say “I told you so” when Obama loses because of her
3. She will do ANYTHING to win
4. She could run unopposed in 2012 for POTUS
In fact, the worst outcome for her would be if Obama beat Macca.
With today’s results ensuring the battle will go on past Penn, 4 March may go down as the day the Dems lost the presidency.
Finnigan,
you are indeed correct that Rudd positioned himself to support the War. He had ambition and this was one of the things he had to do at the time. I give Rudd no credit for that.
Obama also had ambition but he decided to make a different stand. The right stand. I have my suspicions whether he would have done the same thing if he was actually in Congress at the time , but i have done some heavy reading and have come to the conclusion that he provides a glimmer of hope.
It is impossible for a person like Rudd to go against America (ask Latham). America has to change first.
If Obama can change the mindset,even a bit, other leaders can follow.
No 550
Come on marky, Obama is a plain-sailing idealist. I do like him, but Clinton has the runs on the board.
554- GP
I ask again. What particular ‘experience’ or ’substance’ does Clinton have?
534 Finnigans- [Obama would be just the same, he would make no difference ...the great satan system will never allow him or there will be another grassy knoll.]
Hang on, so what are we doing here, supporting Hillary to save Obama from himself? Keep him safe from another FBI plot?
Look, my view is as jaundiced as the next person’s but you have to have a go:
“It’s better to die on your feet than live on your knees.” -coined by Emiliano Zapata, Mexican reformer a century ago
To say “It’s too hard, you can’t beat the system” is a classic defeatist postion the following of which through history would have meant a western decline into misery from the time of the French Revolution onward.
At least you don’t disagree on the changes required apparently Finnigans. Tell me this then – what chance Hillary to shift the dominant paradigms? …
… exactly , so it HAS to be Barack
asanque
re #543
An open, public declaration of one’s vote is prone to intimidation or bribery of the individual voter. This is a much greater danger than the dubious benefit of a more “educated” vote.
And my observation on caucuses is independent of their impact on the Clinton / Obama marathon.
Never said Clinton was not as experienced, just think the argument is a bit thin and a personal attack upon his intelligence. Hilary has become desperate and stupid and is now like John Howard was last year- do anything to win and i don’t care what i do to my opponent as long as in the end i become the candidate. Hence she could ruining Obama’s chances and her own by being seen as a bully.
#541
With the deepest of genuine, heartfelt respect, I take issue with the point about Clinton’s ad campaign potentially ruining any chance Obama has of beating McCain if he wins the nomination.
I’m not so sure. Having your own side say something perhaps does give it a bit more credibility with some people, but in reality, the GOP were always going to run these sort of attacks on him eventually. Their ads will be worse. I support Obama, but I think he needs to confront the whole experience thing as soon as he can. It may actually be easier for him to do it now against Clinton, and thus semi-innoculate himself, than after Labour Day with McCain.
557 – It’s time
Fair enough. I can’t profess to know enough about the caucus system in the US, however, I presume that rules exist to prevent the sort of intimidation and bribery you mention.
Diogenes,
I think that if there is anything to come out of this election, it’s that if the Dems do lose the general then there will be just as large a number of candidates running in four year. The race would either be against a 77 year old McCain or non-incumbent president (although quite possibly against a sitting VP.)
If Hillary takes Obama down before dropping out, there is no chance she will get the nod in 2012. She has a high unfavourable level as it is, and there will be a huge chunk of supporters who will not forget any damage she does. Along with this, she also wouldn’t be able to rack up 100+ superdelegates in 2011 as she did in ‘07, for similar reasons.
No, I think this is her one chance and I think she knows it. In four years time, she will be perceived to be of the old establishment by those who don’t see her as that already.
Just my opinion though, of course.
Bill Clinton was right about one thing….that if Hillary won Texas and Ohio that she’d win the nomination and i bet she will, had the opposite been the case and she’d lost them both Obama he clearly would have won the nomination….
562 – Glen
I’m happy to take any 1-1 wager you have on Hillary winning versus Obama for the Democratic candidacy.
How much would you like?
55 Asanque – I sympathise with your frustration. It’s hard to get an answer on these things form the Clintonites isn’t it? I have asked repeatedly along similar lines ove the past few weeks, but the silence has given me tinnitus.
No-one has been able to make an argumnt as to why Hillary is the better candidate for change in foreign relations, and the M East specifically. No-one. Because it’s impossible to enunciate -she will support Israel to the hilt, and is too close to the vested interests that require perpetual war. And the on the domestic front her “experience” is in failing to implement change in health care delivery.
Why is she better? Why ? Speak!
It’s time,
i do agree with your argument about caucuses. Everyone is entitled to the moment in privacy behind the curtain with pencil in hand. Democracy.
however this is the Dem setup and Obama is winning it fairly and squarely and can’t be passed. What lays ahead is 6 weeks of hell unless Dem heavyweights throw the Clintons out in the next week(after obama wins the next 2 states).
the Obama camp will make it clear that it will be an all in shitfight in the next 3 months if they don’t.
Jen @ 495 – its deadlocked on the Democratic Party side, but the national opinion polls on head-to-heads with McCain are fluctuating wildly,
.
coz its far to early to tell, and several of them are known to be dodgy methodology because they are all weighted or adjusted differently on things like age/sex/race/geography.
.
For most of the leftish, Democratic-leaning sources, the most trusted of the US-based polls seems to be SUSA ( SurveyUSA). But they all seem to agree that they always fluctuate wildly, as its way too far out in time from the full-on campaign.
.
FWIW, one of the latest SUSA national polls had around 60% of solid Democratic voters are “unconcerned” or think “is good for the Party” if the primary battle drags on to the Convention.
.
They been through all this before, and Americans are used to looooooong, really loooong, campaigns, in which anything can, and often does happen — and the later primary states are far more keen and interested now – as in Texas, they haven’t mattered a damn to a Presidential (let alone a Democratic primary) since 1960 – so they had a huge party, pass the popcorn, light the barby. The remaining states also want their turn to have their 15 minutes of fame in the national limelight, so they dont want either to drop out until they’ve had their turn.
.
Americans, go figure?
.
So Dem Party are also discussing it too, some views are that it might be good for the Party, for Dean’s “50-State Strategy” for building the Party across all states.
.
According to some of the women’s and Green Party political sites, it wasn’t so much the 3am ads that helped so much in Texas, it was the other ads which got more airplay on the ground, especially appealing to the women’s voter base, such as the “One in a Million” ad, and a popular clincher was the “One For Ann Richards” ad. Doesn’t matter if you know who Ann Richards was (since she’s dead), but Texans are really, really proud of her.
.
Also Hillary campaigned heavily in person, doing stuff like pitching in to wait tables at down-market diners, accompanied by two popular home-town girl Texan Hollywood stars, and shock-of-horrors (nobody seems to know why, that I can find?) one of its major daily newspapers, the Houston Chronicle, did a late switch and gave a glowing front-page editorial on Hillary. Also, the weighing-in of the Saturday Night Live segment satirising the media’s treatment of Obama seems to have filtered through to a lot more people.
In both Texas and Ohio, its not race so much, as class — in those demographics they tend to see Obama as some rich Harvard college brat, a spoiled frat boy, thats never done a hard-day’s work in his life. Ohio in particular, strongly blue-collar, freezing cold bitter climate, with large regions of trailer-trash or “poor white trash” as they say. An Obama campaigner knocking on their doors with a hope and change message, would be like trying to convince people that Mars has little green men.
Those regions also see Hillary as a “hard-worker”, or at least someone who can relate to it. eg in Ohio, she got up at 5 am several times to personally meet and greet thousands of night-shift workers coming off the assembly lines at sunrise in the cold and rain. That appeals to many people in that demographic.
Also as a Senator, she pushed to peg rises in Congressional salaries, to rises in the minimum wage. ie pollies can only get a raise, when the poor folk do.
She’s fighting her campaign, her way, appealing to her base – Obama is doing his thing his way – and the national polls appear to indicate Americans are quite comfy with that going on. Havent had such an interesting, fun campaign for ages… put your feet up, pass the popcorn and enjoy the ride
#556 – JV – we seem to be going around and around the mulberry bush here. Anyway, lets stick to something that we do agree. yes JOK did gone off key a lot, but the chorus did say “She’s so tough”.
Possum,
“The advertising angle she has chosen to run to get herself back in the game is destroying Obamas chances for the White House if he eventually gains the Dem nomination, yet Obama has at least been smart enough thus far not to go down that road.”
The Libs ran a constant character and experience campaign against Rudd last year. Rudd still won because most voters thought it was all bollocks.
Because Obama is not that well known, he has not been able to shake off the doubts (yet?). But I am sure he will get the chance.
As for Clinton’s campaign, please! She is aiming to win and has every right to run it how she wants. She seems to be kicking with the wind at the moment.
Here is an article on the delegate calculation for Texas and Ohio.
It illustrates just how few delegates that Hillary won in both states despite her winning both.
http://www.usnews.com/blogs/barone/2008/02/25/delegate-counting-in-texas-and-ohio.html
asanque-the betting markets agree with you. They have been pretty indifferent to todays result with Billary going from 20% to 24% chance of being the Dem nominee.
Cold hard maths. Beautiful, powerful, logical cold hard maths….
I wonder if the black community will cry racism if Hilary gets the nod?
567 – Finnigans – Ah, at last, agreement. You are obviously more of a fan than I was, but I do remember him on Brian Henderson’s Bandstand, watching on the neighbours’ TV in I think the early 60s. He had presence.
It would be nothing compared to the outcry from feminist groups if Obama gets it.
544
Generic Person
I don’t know how you mean? How does a TV ad, which is designed purely to raise a straw man of fear, show Clinton as being more able?
Oh, she can defeat the straw man on a TV ad, because she says she can. Yep, I’m convinced.
No 564
Clinton has an exceptional command over the policy detail, both foreign and domestic. She was a first lady and hence has some exposure to executive power. And the list goes on. This is all old news, but it is relevant all the same.
Do I like Obama? Of course. He is intelligent, but he is equally naive in his approach to foreign politics.
asanque
Party rules or even laws against intimidation or bribery are much more difficult to enforce than the protection of the secret ballot.
Diogenes me old mate,
There are a couple of factors which you don’t or won’t consider.
1. Neither candidate is likely to have a majority of committed delegates come the convention. This means the Super delegates will come in to play. It is highly likely that Obama will have slightly more committed delegates than Hillary. However it is also highly likely that Hillary will have obtained many more votes overall. Who will win in that situation? They might even choose someone else!
2. Florida and Michigan are going to have to be dealt with. I find it unbelievable that there are rules in place to cause these States to be disenfranchised in (supposedly) the biggest demonstration of Democracy in the world. These States when included will significantly improve Hillary’s position.
So you play on your little abacus and believe that is all there is to the nomination if you like. It is one of those situations where you can be 100% right and totally wrong at the same time.
Cheers
Will the democrat nomination be decided by corruption, nepotism, or promises to people- hence jobs for the this person or that? As both candidates will not reach the target.
575 Generic P -[She was a first lady and hence has some exposure to executive power. And the list goes on.]
Your application will be processed and you will be advised of the outcome. If we were to receive no superior applications by the closing date, your appplication will be activelty considered. The panel may decide not to make an appointment, instead deciding that no candidate has met the slection criteria.
Greeensborough Growler …. I realise your irony ….. “in (supposedly) the biggest demonstration of Democracy in the world”. USA elections are new to me and seem weird. They don’t vote for politicians, they vote for delegates who then choose???? Sort of like the Politburo??
Ex Norfik Local @ 559
Don’t get me wrong, it’s good for both of them that they’re slogging it out, but Clinton needs to (but is probably unable to) be more circumspect about how they carry it out.
Because Obama is a blank canvas on national security – these Clinton adds are filling in the blanks and painting the picture. There’s nothing wrong with Clinton having a dig at Obama on national security – but the way it’s framed is really important if Obama wins eventually wins the nomination.
There’s no doubt at all that the Republicans will do similar if Obama gets the nomination – but by that time Obama would have a strong national security running mate, as well as the whole Democratic apparatus supporting him, including powerful defense faces like Wes Clarke coming into the tent to kill the power of that message.
But as just a contender for the nomination, Obama is essentially naked to those charges and open to being permanently framed with those adds. Clinton knows it and she’s doing it deliberately.
Gore and Dean need tell her to wake up to herself.
Clinton could take Obama on in national security and win it powerfully without painting him in the process, but the Dems are playing silly buggers by really even thinking about taking each other on in national security to begin with at this stage of the game! Despite the war (and as happens with these things, despite common sense!), it’s still the republicans strongest issue and the Dems shouldnt touch it with a barge pole until they have the nomination settled so they can manage it better by bringing the right faces into the mix to kill it – with the full power of the Dems propaganda machine backing it.
I think Clinton is making a big mistake on this one, whether she wins or not.
American is not a democracy dingo.
It is about money, and you must have plenty of it hence enough to run a campaign, thus the abilty to raise heaps and unfortunately people who do not have it cannot run.
Seems to me some are getting very rusted on to candidates they probably wouldn’t vote for in a fit if they were running for PM here. Honestly, if it came down to a contest between Rudd and Clinton, McCain or Obama, would you vote for any of the Americans?
FWIW, IMO:
McCain would be slightly, very slightly, George Lite on foreign policy; as hopeless on the economy; and not much chop on global warming (GW).
Clinton wouldn’t be greatly different on foreign policy to McCain, remember hubby wasn’t adverse to killing foreigners, even when a lot of them were infants; passable on the economy and maybe willing to do a little on GW. As for her experience, I don’t see thats she has much more than BHO. If sleeping with the boss counted for anything a lot of corporations would be run by ex secretaries.
Obama, sounds good, but experience shows that great orators are mostly bags of wind with feet of clay. Churchill is an exception, but only in terms of the British. He never did us much good (think Gallipoli, Crete, Singapore). OTOH, BHO is probably the least likely to start WW3; might be okay on the economy, or he may not; and could be the best of the bunch on GW. Plus, he’s built a much better campaign organisation than Hillary, and possibly McCain, which, IMHO, counts given the nature of the presidency.
But if I was an American I think I’d succumb to near terminal apathy on Nov 4th, and then immigrate to Oz.
marky marky .. i am curious .. why are so many Australians so interested and so incredibly knowledgable about the arcane rules of USA elections? …. very little will change whether its a democrat or a republican.. they will still suport judicial killings; support use of land mines; deny USA capability to commit war crimes: have selective support for the rule of law and probably support torture …. and defeat any measure that would compromise their imperial power ……
I’m with you Mayo – I wouldn’t vote for any of them.
I front up to the caucus meeting in a black neighbourhood.
I’m black, as is everyone else I can see, and want to vote for a white.
The mood is for the black candidate and a vote against this person, for those attending, would be tantamount to treachery and on display for all to see. To follow my conscience I have to expose myself to derision and personal risk – as a minimum.
For those who can’t grasp it – for any hope of a democratic outcome, the secret ballot is the very first requirement…
Possm & Mayo & Dingo – Good point – of course we wouldn’t vote for any of them here. But they directly affect us here, in wars, economics, environment and media. It is important to our daily lives. And it is only a matter of degree, but half a degree change will be significant.
KR,
This wasn’t you today by any chance?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q1v52f1TrWg
Dingo, absolotely right!!!
Because dingo many Australians still see America as rescuing us in World War 2, and this alliance with them and because all or most of our popular culture is now american.
Dingo some of decisions by our politicians are also like america as well.
But of course america comes first with regard to bases, and contracts- hence the contract on the helicopters has been cancelled but the american contractors will naturally be paid.
Always liked the Dads Army comedies and one regarding the American lads in World War Two going to Britain and stilling all the wives and girlfriends, sums it up really.
Possum @ 581
Maybe you’re right, I’m not sure. I definitely agree that ‘national security’ is the most dangerous issue of all for the Democrats, war or no war. I have serious doubts about whether McCain can be beaten in an election dominated by national security. Maybe I watch too much Fox News, but I am getting nervous. If it wasn’t for the turn-out figures and the fundraising advantage, I would be extremely worried. We have the year-long spectacle of the September 11 trials coming up, followed by Iraqi regional elections (October I think), guaranteed to keep these issues in the news. If the surge/alliance with Sunni tribal militia continues to keep attacks on American troops down for another 6 months, I also wouldn’t mind betting that more and more independents will start to buy the line that a rapid withdrawal from Iraq amounts to cutting and running, cutting into the one real foreign policy advantage the Democrats have.
thanks jaundiced .. i agree they affect the world .. and i think we all should have a right to vote for “delegates” .. you know .. “colonial delegates” ….
JV @ 587.
It’s funny isnt it.
3 contenders that few here would give the political time of day to end up being so important to us in the general scheme of things.
I don’t think the Republicans will win – too much baggage, the Christian vote will stay home and do whatever it is they do, and too many independents are fed up to the back teeth with with the Republicans.Unless the Dems really screw it up, McCain will look all hat and no horse,
But Clinton as President will be divisive – she has this low popularity ceiling which will never disappear, her Presidency will get bogged down in partisan drivel like her husbands did (regardless of what she does) and America ends up with another 4 or 8 wasted years where the usual big money interests that tend to hang around political dynasties end up polluting and bastardising any real policy initiative she tries to implement.
But with Obama – no one knows. The only thing we know is that Bush will probably go down as the most incompetent President and administration that the US will ever have the misfortune of electing, so at least he can only be an improvement. But we don’t know his ceiling for potential. Would an Obama presidency at its vacuous worse be better than a paralyzed Clinton presidency at its divisive worse ? And what about the best of each?
Shit choice all up!
Possum, I know my opinion is meaningless but i think the unknown-ness of Obama is the best bet .. he may turn out to be a breath of fresh air to that ex-democracy .. if he is a “failure”, it will not matter as he won’t be worse than Dubya …..
Also., it will be great to have someone who speaks English!!!!
Ex Norfik @ 590
That timetable for national security events you mention is a killer for the Dems. The reason I think they should leave the issue alone now and not deal with it until they can rally around their nomination is because if they have this fight now and Clinton wins, the press will run with the story right up into the election that Hillary beat Obama over national security and national security will become the theme. Especially with that timetable of events creating the day to day story.
If Obama wins the nomination, he’s already been partially painted by Hillary as weak on national security, and that weakness then becomes a theme right up into the election.Especially with that timetable of events creating the day to day story.
Either way – the Dems are fools for playing the national security card against each other.
I dont think McCain will win unless the Dems screw it up, but if they turn this into a security election, they might well screw it up.
Mayo
“But if I was an American I think I’d succumb to near terminal apathy on Nov 4th, and then immigrate to Oz.”
I think we’re going to succumb to more than terminal apathy pretty soon if this Democratic nomination isn’t put to bed. Sitting here at our terminals saying “he said/she said” and a dearth of primaries of break the tedium.
Terminal apathy, indeed.
Marky mark …. Australia faces a big re-orientation .. USA is in decline .. and China is a nasty dictatorship ……. but it is our present and future economic power. We need to position ourselves in new more sophisticated way… I think (despite the cricket!!) we should cultivate a closer relationship with India as balance to China. We are not and never have been important to USA. They only came here in WW2 when they were attacked by the Japanese. We had been fighting for two and half years before they joined the war. They will never support any country unless it is their interest and therefore we hardly need an alliance to get their support in that case. With an alliance they will still not support us if it was not in their interest.
Possum,
The election will be about the economy. The US is in recession now. Who will be best able to lead the country in a time of rising unemployment, mortgage foreclosures etc.
A lot of the discussion here is dominated by foreign policy issues mainly because we are outsiders looking in. I am not sure how critical these issues are to the yanks. We always hear how insulated and self focussed they are.
Possum @ 592 – [Would an Obama presidency at its vacuous worse be better than a paralyzed Clinton presidency at its divisive worse ? And what about the best of each? Shit choice all up!]
Yes, agree a lot of unknowns about Obama as President, but they’re the usual unknowns in a presidential candidate. Some of Hillary’s “knowns” are a guarantee of the status quo in a lot of key areas. Clinton is trying to make capital out of having that oh-so-eclectic inside knowledge from her time as first lady. I would too because no-one else in this campaign can claim it. The downside for her is that if she claims a benefit for her experience in the Bill Presidency she must also accept responsibility for her own failures (eg Health) and her part in his. She can’t have it both ways.
I can’t see what there is to lose with Obama – if he can’t shift the US approach to the world, he will at least have tried, but Clinton isn’t likely to even try. If Obama fails, OK it’s the status quo, no worse that it would have been with Clinton.
I’d rather see a grand failure than 4 years of conservative sludge. If that’s risk-taking, deal me in.
Possum their are two things against Obama he is does not have a decorated war record and colour, and americans who go for heros’ and many still have this juvenile and genetic view of the world about white supremacy whites having greater intelligence.
Obama though is far more articulate and will be brillant in a debate with him because he will just be to quick and very good at coming up with ideas or arguments to bamboozle him. Mcain at 71, will have an old mind and old ideas.
Americans though are a very stupid bunch of people and this may not be enough. The media coverage will be crucial.
592
Possum Comitatus
Nicely summed up, with Hillary’s Presidency one “..where the usual big money interests that tend to hang around political dynasties end up polluting and bastardising any real policy initiative she tries to implement.”
Of course we only have Obama’s word that he’ll be a break to this dynastic ping pong in the Oval Office, but hey, I’m an optimist, and would prefer giving him a shot to the near certianty of another sclerotic Clinton Whitehouse.
“It’s 3am, and the phone rings in the Whitehouse. Who do you want to answer this call…”Hello Madam President, we’ve found your husband, ah, he’s with the German Ambassador’s daughter this time, what do you want us to do with him?”
#586 Bryce. That’s called democracy. I actually think the caucus system is MORE democratic. The central problem of modern politics is the atomisation of society. We are all individuals cocooned from community in nuclear families connected to world by electronic media controlled by corporations. The individual in the booth “making their decision” is in fact making a decision in an environment where there is no real discussion, no open debate, no responsibility to defend racism or any other prejudice with argument.
Jaundiced .. in an international sense USA desperately needs someone to challenge their appallingly ineffective attitude to the world, especially in the middle east, south america, Cuba etc ……..
It’s still better than having a President whose First Lady has never been proud of the Country her husband leads!
Glen .. You are SO into ephemeral crap….
Dingo- agree with your statements but that is not how the average Joe on the street thinks. I cannot stand the Americans, they have created most the problems in the world and more but we Aussies are obsessed with them.
When September 11 happened our television was dominated with American coverage for days afterwards and some stations 24 coverage. Our magazines and newspapers are full of American celebrities and many Australians read this crap, just go to any supermarket and look at the Australians looking at this doss..
The alliance i agree will never be honoured but most Australians would hate us not having it, it is this insecurity complex that we have that we cannot go it alone. Didn’t Keating say we are the arse end of the world and yep he is right.
“It’s still better than having a President whose First Lady has never been proud of the Country her husband leads!”
Michelle for President I say!
Growler is right, (oh, OK, I’ve been banging on about it for weeks! LOL), it’ll be more about the economy than national security come November.
Yesterday Bernanke was asking the banks to just right off some of the sub-prime loans so that mortgage holders would not be ‘underwater’.
Yep, you heard it! The Fed Reserve Chairman is aksing the banks to just right down the size of the loans to stall the huge wave of foreclosures. Well, the banks made the problem, so maybe they should shoulder the worst of it, but hey, imagine, if you can, what Americans are thinking when they hear this?
Come November the only national security they’ll be keen to hear about will be financial security, and last time I looked, John McCain didn’t appear too up to speed on that front.
I can’t see this is really good news for the Democratic party, given it means the dirt will start getting dirtier between the two candidates’ camps as the fight intensifies. Basically, Hillary and Obama will be writing the scripts for McCain’s attack ads when the real campaign starts. The continuining Democrat deadlock just underlines what a weird system the US’s is.
Maybe Obama should wait until next time, when he has a genuine record to point to and a bit more gravitas to go with the baby-faced enthusiasm.
write off
NOT
right off
dyslexic digit strokes aguan!
The economy matters but will the poor and the people who are affected by the economy actually vote. When it is not compulsory much of the people who do not vote are those who are uneducated, poor and who do not care about politics.
Greeny – it should be about the economy, and a sizeable part no doubt will be. But without compulsory voting, there’s essentially two electorates; those that are tuned in and vote, and those that arent tuned in generally dont. It’s that latter group that can be mobilised by pressing their buttons.
And there’s no hotter button than war, terrorists, and organised violence. That’s the danger for the Dems – the republicans mobilising a vote that should ordinarily stay home.Especially if the Dems lose some of their voter turnout that they received in the primaries by Obama and Clinton scratching each others eyes out to the point where it alienates the supporters of the eventual loser.
And the problem with talking economics to large populations is that it quickly becomes an exercise in rhetorical horsesh*t.
All three of them would repeat the same slogans about responsible government, reducing the deficit, more jobs growth etc ( with strategic dollops of agrarian socialism and industrial protection thrown into the mix). But they’ll all do what Rudd did to Howard – fight the opposition to a standstill on the economy with cliches. Then the other issues start to matter unless someone does the economy spiel particularly well and resonates. Hillary isnt exactly the great resonator, McCain is a cure for insomnia and I’m not sure if anyone has figured out what Obama is actually talking about yet (just that it sounds good)
Healthcare is a biggy, but half the population think socialised healthcare means the commies come round and kidnap grandma to use her organs as transplants.
Maybe I’m just too cynical about the whole thing.
Nationalism is one step from Patriotism.
Patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel and part of what is wrong with the US.
Its great to love one’s own country, but at the end of the day, we are all humans.
No person has a better right to live then any other person irrespective of which country they are from.
Patriotism is naturally divisive.
And Michelle said “really proud” for what its worth.
Check any public record Glen, although I note truth has never ever been a part of your arguments.
603 – Dingo -[in an international sense USA desperately needs someone to challenge their appallingly ineffective attitude]
I couldn’t agree more. And you can add Aus to that list. That’s why we are interested here in the election, to answer your earlier question.
607 RB – Agree – Anyway – att. Glen – I think the words were “really proud” so there was a qualifier, and in their context I think she was spot on. How could anyone be proud of the US in the last 20 years?
Marky, yes, i agree … i am bemused and confused by what’s happening to our country. But i think (hope) in future it will change.
One of the present problems is the absurd media rules. The commercial channels and increasingly the ABC are just arms of USA media hence Australians are bought up to increasingly think like north Americans, even though such thinking is inapplicable to the issues we face nor with our position in the world.
i am a 7th generation Australian and therefore have no second passport but i am torn between an inability to live away from this LAND/COUNTRY but an increasing alienation from the NATION.
602,
Democracy is rule of the people. Nothing more.
It doesn’t stipulate fairness, equality or justness.
Democracy once delivered a 5% victory for a candidate in New Guinea (tribal loyalties and FPP).
Democracy also delivers us a Senate where 12 Senators from Tasmania have the same voting power as 12 from NSW.
Please…
An analysis which understands what’s actually happened from a bunch of cynical US lefties who’s assessment of the candidates is similar to Possum’s:
http://www.socialistworker.org/2008-1/664/664_02_Clintonism.shtml
KR said”
“It’s 3am, and the phone rings in the Whitehouse. Who do you want to answer this call…”Hello Madam President, we’ve found your husband, ah, he’s with the German Ambassador’s daughter this time, what do you want us to do with him?”
Now why isnt THAT on Youtube!
Thank you Mr KR and yes, I have noticed you mention the economy issue once or twice. Your message is obviously sinking in.
One thing Hillary will have going for her is that she can and no doubt will remind her fellow Americans of the salad days of sunshine and prosperity when her and her better half ran the place back in the 90s.
That might resonate as a point of differentiation.
We are only interested because it is all over our television screens, internet blogs and in our newspapers, and much the multinationals live in america. Also the most dangerous man in the world lives in america- Rupert Murdoch who through his tabloids keeps us informed of American culture and news.
Love your work KR, that is brillant, thanks for bringing that down from your tree Possum.
Ozy,
i would much prefer an Obama presidency than a Clinton one, but if the roles were reversed and Clinton had an insurmountable delegate lead and was starting to pull down the Party, i would be advocating he pull out.
Clinton is fighting a losing cause and should be dispensed with after 2 more losses next week.
Ol Johnny Bomb Bomb needs to be run ragged for the longest possible time.
A 4 month campaign would be ideal for him. Run him ragged for 8 months and watch him make old man mistakes.
yes he is tough…his POW record attests to that….but he is very old. Use it to your advantage.
Obamas block of supers(with Dean,Richardson,Edwards and Gore) need to act in the days around the next to races on Sat and Tues and finish her for good this time.
If this thing is still going this time next week, you know for sure the supers are gonna overturn the pledged deles and give the job to Hill.
Possum – [Maybe I’m just too cynical about the whole thing.]
If you aren’t sufficiently cynical about a show like a US election, you don’t get the belly laughs that are on offer daily. You’d also go spare trying to understand the voting systems. Who’d have thought we local tragics would be lambasting each other over the relative fairness of a ‘caucus” vote over a “primary” and the significance of the distribution in state districts. if you’d told me that 3 1/2 months ago I wouldn’t have believed you.
Ha JV – when the actual election happens, we at least wont have to worry about chads!
Me. This site is, in theory, psephomological.
John King (CNN anchor) just said that calls for Clinton to exit (based on delegate counts) are absurd: “that’s like calling the Indy 500 at 475 miles, just because you’re ahead.”
.
ahahahaha…
.
I do love Americans, (but then my partner is American, so I’m biased), and their politics amongst 350 million plus people, are just so diverse no wonder they have 50+ different ways of doing it, and many are in the mindset of “It aint over, till its over, Laker’s games dont call it quits at 3/4 time, just when its getting real interesting”, and who cares what the “west coast tree-hugging yuppies” think or how they voted in their primary, when you live in Nebraska? The referees will weigh in, when they feel they need to, not when either of the players, or the sheeple in the bleachers, cries “Foul”.
.
Sorry Dingo, change is not forthcoming. Politics has now become an appendage of the corporate elite. It is now run by corporations for the benefit of corporations. Lobbyists and big money rules, and the media who go to town when a politican goes outside the square.
And not forgetting political spin, words and issues to cause keep people away from the real issues. That is why celebrity news is important.
Our politicians will do little to change such a situation because they are weak, lack vision and are more interested in the perks and super, sorry to be cynical but it is true.
Mark Vaile and Alexander Downer just highlight how pathetic it has become, play golf because doing anything is just to difficult.
And a mighty fine theory it is Billbowe!
Hillary’s dreaming
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/marc-cooper/its-3-am-and-hillarys_b_89936.html
yes Marky Mark .. .. it is sad but true …..nothing changes……
William Bowe @ 625 [Me. This site is, in theory, psephomological.]
Fair point well made Wil.lia.m. And I had thought that word would be ‘psephological’. So thanks for the correct spelling.
Possum 624 [at least wont have to worry about chads]
The Bush boys will conjure up some other means of rorting the process. Jeb’s probably over with V Putin now getting the latest techniques. Chadskoyas ?
Rain,
please don’t make me laugh.
of course John King (employee and host of CNN) is going to say “continue this rating winning ,ad revenue raising campaign”.
gimme a break
It is correct, JV. I was making a little Homer Simpson joke.
627 Marky -[Politics has now become an appendage of the corporate elite. It is now run by corporations for the benefit of corporations. Lobbyists and big money rules, and the media who go to town when a politican goes outside the square.]
Marky- My, my, even more cynicism tonight. Living in NSW I must agree. There is no commitment any more to the responsibilities of government here, only to themselves and their mates. Here it’s the holy grail of keeping the Standard & Poors AAA rating. In the US the responsibilities of government have long been to ‘keep the wheels turning’ of the economy. Once you get into that mindset, it just becomes a greater and greater need to feed the monster. So they go to war to keep industry and the miltary happy and spend 3 trillion. They are so bound up in it they haven’t realised that the nation has borrowed more than industry can produce. Where’s the economic logic of that?
KR can you help?
Oi you lot,
Any chance Sheridan may be channeling Poll Bludger with this piece.
http://blogs.theaustralian.news.com.au/gregsheridan/index.php/theaustralian/comments/obama_caught_out_by_3am_wake_up_call
Throw a few hard questions at Obama and he gets up and runs away.
talks the talk can’t walk the walk
The fight is far from over
Andrew Stephen
Published 05 March 2008
The overwhelming reason for the last-minute mass defections from Obama to Clinton was that the Clinton campaign team, after almost giving up in despair, had finally discovered a way to get under Obama’s skin and make his halo start to slip. Their tactics culminated last Monday in the worst day of the election campaign so far for Obama, when he held a bad-tempered press conference that ended abruptly when he walked out after just eight questions.
Most damaging of all for his campaign, though, was the realisation that St Barack was not above telling fibs and using underhand campaign tactics; if you assiduously cultivate an image of unadulterated rectitude and honour, then the fall from grace is going to be that much greater. Instead of the soaring oratory from Obama to which television viewers had become accustomed, last Monday they saw instead a petulantly defensive candidate trying to explain that he had not lied over his North American Free Trade Agreement policy or his ties to Antoine “Tony” Rezko – a Syrian-born property developer in Chicago whose trial for fraud and attempted extortion had, propitiously, begun that very day.
Wiliam @ 633 – I should have realised- and I have the “Homer Sapien” T shirt which I wore a few days ago (in the yard, not at work)
Someone said a while ago that Clinton was opposed to a revote in MI and FL. According to leading Clinton supporter Gov Ted Strickland, that doesn’t seem to be the case.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video_log/2008/03/clinton_supporters_aiming_for.html
GG @ 635 – Gee, I wonder who Sheridan supports:
“McCain didn’t take refuge in lofty phrases devoid of meaning – yes we can – but instead communicated a clear set of hard political positions. He wants to stay and win in Iraq, he wants to make business healthy with low and simple taxes, and he believes the US and the world benefit from free trade. That’s leadership. That’s what’s needed.”
Yeah, that’s leadership – for the wealthy. And the sick can cure themselves, because there’ll be no tax to pay for their care, but, as he says, at least business will be healthy under McCain.
Vera @ 636 – [if you assiduously cultivate an image of unadulterated rectitude and honour"]
Vera – I think you are attibuting too much to your first impressions and expectations for Obama. He is after all, only a politician. It’s all a matter of small differences, and his are better, that’s all.
throw Sheridan a tissue.
the prospect of warmongers Bomb Bomb and Hill is positively orgasmic.
Adam 638 – If you’re still there – I agree, surely the Ohio governor wouldn’t say that without approval. I’d say they are going for it it because ,as the delegate numbers are still against Clinton, they have nothing to lose, and also the party might have already said there will be no delegates seated from those states as things stand. Interesting. Who decides?
The DNC would have to ask the FL and MI state legislatures to pass bills for new primaries. Since new primaries would bring zillions more dollars to the two states, they would rush to oblige.
I think HRC’s calculation is that she could win both primaries – FL is heavily Hispanic (although most of the Cubans are Republicans), and MI heavily working-class (though most of Detroit is black). It would be a gamble but if she won both it might be the killer punch. The Dem establishment knows that Obama is a phony and there would be a stampede to HRC if she won FL and MI reruns.
Adam,
don’t you understand yet that a majority of people don’t want who the politicians want.
Congress approval is 19%
The Republican Party didn’t want McCain……but the people did.
You say The Democratic Party don’t want Obama…..but the people do
643 Adam _ Ah, so if the states of Florida & Michigan want a re-vote, Obama has no power of veto In theory though it’s a big ask in terms of money for the candidates isn’t it? Not that that seems to be a problem. But in theoory what if some other minnows were still in it, and had their dollars worked out for the primaries they had expected – they’d be cactus.
If I were on Hillary’s team I’d be seeking the same. Did you see Terry McAuliffe avoid the question as to whether Hillary would accept defeat on the basis of being behind on pledged delegates? There’s no f’ing way she will not go to the superdelegates if required on the stength of what he said there.
And – I had to good laugh at your trashing of Obama as phony, ha! – you are consistent, but I really can’t see why you can’t wear him. Wouldn’t he have greater chance of changing the international quagmire than a re-cycled hack like her?
Looks as though for all the brouhaha HRC has only netted about 12 delegates from her so called big wins. This despite further reports of racist ads in which the Clinton camp darkened Obama’s skin in a video. How low will this witch stoop? Sorry, don’t answer that, we already know.
On a separate note, it is reported that the US Justice Dept has over 900,000 names on its “terrorist” database, Do they ever stop to wonder why so few people outside the US don’t like them?
ACLU Watch List Counter
Why are there so many names on the U.S. government’s terrorist list?
In September 2007, the Inspector General of the Justice Department reported that the Terrorist Screening Center (the FBI-administered organization that consolidates terrorist watch list information in the United States) had over 700,000 names in its database as of April 2007 – and that the list was growing by an average of over 20,000 records per month.1
At that rate, our list will have a million names on it by July. If there were really that many terrorists running around, we’d all be dead.
Terrorist watch lists must be tightly focused on true terrorists who pose a genuine threat. Bloated lists are bad because
* they ensnare many innocent travelers as suspected terrorists, and
* because they waste screeners’ time and divert their energies from looking for true terrorists.
Correction, should read ‘why so few people outside the US like them’.
I see reported that Huckleberry is about to sign a lucrative cable deal as a correspondent, maybe Jon Stewart or Colbert has signed him to a permanent spot as a clown!
Texas Caucus:
38% of the count
Obama 56
Clinton 44
Obama +4, Clinton -4 (from late yesterday evening)
Basil – WHY the witch reference?
I haven’t seen any HRC supporters making throw away lines referring to Obama as ‘that bastard’ or similar (and if I have, they shouldn’t).
You can convey your opinions of someone without throwing around gratuitous insults.
I’m with Adam, he is a fraud and incompetent, not that that has ever stopped them before.
.
Watch her donations go up now! Americans like their sports and are big gamblers throughout big games, and the 4-yearly Presidential is one of the biggest games of all. To many, she has done a good quality return play, a nice slam-dunk, and so she gets $20 out of next months pay. Its still close at 3/4 time.
.
If you watch their language when talking about it, they say things like he’s had a “free pass”, or he got a handed a “soft ball ” and he didn’t bat it. He hasn’t even begun to play any “hard ball” yet. Who have they got “in the tank”? Unpledged delegates can change their mind at any point in the game, thats the rules – they can publicly switch for months, it ain’t official. So far its been very mild friendly sparring, and if he’s dropping on the “warm-ups”, stumbling in press conferences – well there’s still time for him to pick up his game.
.
Making gaffes like the references to NATO, a bad fumblel. Publicly dictating what he thinks NATO allies should, or shouldn’t be doing, when he’s still just a candidate. As a Senator he is also responsible for the relevant Committee covering NATO, but it hasn’t met in the 14 months since he took responsibility for it. He announced publicly he was “too busy with his Presidential campaign” to keep up with his Senate work?????
.
The POTUS is both “Head of State” and “Head of Government”. In other republics its two separate people, the “Head of State” role is usually apolitical and ceremonial figurehead, but Head of Government role, you do need to know how to run a country’s government and administration.
.
Meanwhile Clinton is still continuing her full Senator workload with several committees, including responsibility for the Armed Forces – has 25 or 30 high-ranking military generals etc, publicly endorsing her, (and you wonder why she won Fort Worth, Texas?) and still finds time to campaign in person with the minimum wagers in Ohio, and fly back to NYC for a few minutes to appear on late night TV comedy show.
.
For the Party officials, they are like coaches, its watching *how* they play the game. Do they miss balls? Did they field that one? How did they field it? He’s dropping the ball on big states. She got em out to vote in Ohio, in the freezing rain and storms, bordering on local emergency bad weather shutdowns. Obama pays college kids by the busload to wander around the more affluent cities, hiring big venues for rallies and charging big prices on tickets.
.
The primaries, despite record turn-outs, are still less than 10% of the turnout expected in November – it is not representative of a popular vote, and most Americans are well aware of that. Its unusual and rare for it to go this long without a clear nominee reaching the “magic number”, but it has happened before, and its not necessarily a bad thing when it does. Means more people are motivated and interested in engaging with the process. Everybody gets more time to consider the candidates, and McCain will be a toughie, even Democrats like him
.
Like I said, its 3/4 time and it aint over, till its over. I suspect some decision will need to be made on FL and MI soon though, they only have a 6 week “window” to deal with it.
.
The morning after the “comeback” and what did her win in “two delegate rich states” yield Clinton? We now have the complete figures from CNN:
Ohio – 71/59 (Clinton +12)
RI – 13/8 (Clinton +5)
Vermont – 6/9 (Obama +3)
Texas Primaries – 65/61 (Clinton +4)
Net gain a paltry 18 delegates.
Texas Caucuses – no delegate count yet but, if Obama maintains present 8% lead should be about +3 for Obama which would make her net gain for the night 15 delegates. Obama won Hawaii by 15 delegates (that would be “delegate rich Hawaii”).
18 delegates at stake in Wyoming and 40 in Mississippi. If Obama wins them 60/40 he’ll claw back another 12 delegates within the week.
Meanwhile, in the real world (where people can handle primary school mathematics), both RCP and CNN have Clinton’s SD lead down to 39. Watch that space in the next few days. The spectacle of Clinton praising McCain on national security in order to attack Obama is not going to endear her to the party big-wigs.
I certainly admire the audacity of the hope of all you Clinton fans, but you need more substance and less anti-Obama rhetoric. She remains over 100 delegates behind and will slip further in the coming weeks.
I could go through point by point responding to issues like donations (Obama is far and away setting records on this front), phoniness (being boring doesn’t actually make Hillary any more sustantial than being eloquent makes Obama less so. Their policy outlines remain THE SAME. Have a look at their sites rather than smear pieces) or any number of other rediculous points, but being a pseph site, I’ll return to the numbers and keep my argument there.
Clinton will have small ups and downs from here on, but she has run a disasterous, arrogant campaign. She was paying Mark Penn, Wolfson and others hunderds of thousands per month, and put all her eggs in a 5 Feb basket. She is now behind on every count, including the one that counts.
I heard Hillary on the radio talking about her national security credentials v Obama. Doesnt she realise she is helping McCain start his campaign early???
‘Clinton To Have Hard Time Overcoming Obama’s Delegate Lead:
“Tonight we won three out of four contests and began a new chapter in this historical campaign,” the victorious Clinton told reporters on her campaign plane.
But even if she wins every contest left, Clinton still would have a hard time overcoming Barack Obama’s pledged delegate lead. In fact, her task got even harder because even though she won Texas, Ohio and Rhode Island Tuesday night, she didn’t do much to close the delegate gap — and with every contest that passes, the number up for grabs drops.
Obama Focuses On The Math:
Obama focused on the math while addressing supporters in Texas. “We have nearly the same delegate lead as we did this morning and we are on our way to winning this nomination,” he said.
Clinton’s best hope is to try to rack up big margins in the spring contests. Even her own advisers acknowledge Obama will probably win the two other states left this month — Wyoming on Saturday and Mississippi next Tuesday. If she is able to continue turning voters against Obama in the races after that, she could plausibly clinch the nomination by persuading superdelegates to back her.’
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/03/05/democratic-nominee-what-_n_89960.html
So very true Robert on the delegate count, but perception is reality, and the media tale and the public perception is that the comeback queen is back. An amazing spin given opinion polling from 3-4 weeks ago in Texas and Ohio. Perception-wise, Obama would have been hoping to take Texas, blunting much of the media coverage that we’re seeing now.
I’d call yesterday a draw in the overall primary race. Obama had an opportunity to land a knockout blow on Clinton, which he didn’t do, and Clinton had an opportunity to make up a large number of pledged delegates, which she also didn’t do. But that’s not the way it’s going to be played out in public. If the Texas caucuses continue to show the same numbers they show at the moment and Obama takes a large number of delegates in Wyoming and Mississippi, perhaps that narrative will shift early next week.
Andrew – she absolutely understands that. She is a very astute woman. But I’m sure she would rather McCain starting at the halfway line and be facing her rather than the quaterway line and facing Obama.
Anyway, I just saw a Pelosi release saying she expected a nominee before the convention and is encouraging SDs to weigh in. Not long now.
Al – I agree regarding media “perception”. But the same media shallowness will work in Obama’s favour as I argued in a post last night. When he wins Wyoming and Mississippi later in the week they will all be saying that he’s back on track.
NY Magazine’s take:
http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2008/03/heilemann_clinton_seeds_just_e.html
>”The Obama campaign will say — is already saying, in fact — that all of this matters naught. That the only thing that matters now is delegates. And in a sense, of course, they are correct, as even the Clintonites admit. And here it appears that HRC has done little to dent Obama’s formidable advantage. By the time the counting is over in Texas — which, heaven help us, may not be for another few days — Clinton may only have netted a handful of delegates for all the shouting about her latest shock-the-world comeback.”
>”But as my friend John Dickerson over at Slate observes, “The Democratic race has now come down to a contest of numbers versus narrative.” The Clinton narrative revolves, most obviously, around the fact that Hillary has won all of the biggest and most important states apart from Illinois, Obama’s home. And her team will employ this narrative vociferously in the days ahead to try to keep the 500 or so as yet undecided superdelegates — a portion of which either side will need to reach the magic 2,025 delegates required to nail down the nomination — from siding with their foe.”
>”On a deeper level, however, the Clinton narrative boils down to a blunter, more primal claim: that, in the end, Obama can’t win when it counts. As a senior Clinton official put it to me in an e-mail very late last night, “Here’s the deal on BHO — no one is ever going to have a better month than his February. If you can’t close the deal after that, when can you?””
>”The argument is patently, glaringly, ostentatiously, unrepentantly self-serving. But for Democrats who want above all a candidate who can indeed close the deal that matters most — the deal that will go down in November — there’s still a chance, however small, that it’s an argument that could cut ice. Especially if, six weeks hence, Clinton wins again in Pennsylvania. —John Heilemann”
653 – “I certainly admire the audacity of the hope of all you Clinton fans”
Pancho, “audacity” and “fans”?
I want a Democrat in the Whitehouse in 2009.
Clinton can win – Obama can not.
I’m no fan of Clinton, but a McCain presidency is far worse.
Get real you guys. A black Dem won’t win.
Pancho,
I think the point is that (barring a tap on the shoulder, which I don’t think will come) Hillary is now going on to Pennsylvania at least.
Whatever happens with pledged delegate numbers, the super-delegates will decide this. Now they may well choose to go with pledged delegates, which as you and others have correctly pointed out, would make Obama close to unbeatable from here. But they may not.
Whatever happens, I think re-runs of Florida and Michigan are looking quite likely.
The problem now for the Democrats is going to be that with McCain now assured of the Republican nomination he can basically begin campaigning for the presidency and get a good few months head start on whoever ends up with the Democrat nomination, whilst Clinton and Obama still fight one another in the primaries.
I agree Bryce. A Catholic could never be POTUS. All those Kennedy fans are dreaming. Sorry, wrong election.
Anyway, back in the real world…it seems like Clinton’s Texas primary gain may not even be 4. It could be a net gain of 2:
“In a West Texas district with four national delegates to award, Clinton is teetering on the edge of a 3-1 delegate split, and 14 precincts have yet to report. If Obama can gain a few votes — amounting to .004 percent of the overall vote in Senate District 19 — he can lower Clinton’s take to a 2-2 split, and drop her overall delegate lead to 64-62 in Texas.”
http://www.statesman.com/blogs/content/shared-gen/blogs/austin/politics/entries/2008/03/05/clintons_delegate_lead_is_4_an.html
Add in the caucus results and it could be Nevada all over again!
PS I’m not really a Hillary fan and I agree with your comments, Pancho, about her poor campaign.
But I just don’t think Obama closed the deal yesterday, which he would have if he’d won T+O.
638 – Thanks Adam.
I won’t have a chance to watch those videos from later.
But if true, does appear to be a change from their previous position.
643 – Adam
For a supposed numbers man, I’m surprised at your claims for Florida and Michigan.
I’m sure you know that even if Hillary won those primaries more handily then she won against no competition and no campaigning, her net gain would unlikely be more then 20 delegates in total for both states.
How she would win a stampede after still being behind in pledged delegates, I’ll leave you to explain.
How much lower can Billary go? Having done the simple arithmetic (yes GG it’s still a simple matter of adding up, delegates plus superdelegates) and worked out she is going to lose, she changes tack.
“She made a tour of morning TV shows and suggested that she could ask Senator Obama to be her running mate in November’s general election against Senator McCain.
She acknowledged that many Democrats dreamed of them teaming up at the end of their titanic presidential struggle.
“That may, you know, be where this is headed,” she added, “but of course we have to decide who’s on the top of ticket. I think that the people of Ohio very clearly said that it should be me.””
Right, so the people of Ohio decide that she should be the nominee. I think the people of about thirty states have clearly said it should be Obama. She is such a craven f*wit.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23327020-601,00.html
She Stoops To Conquer:
“Why, some of my best friends are African-Americans!!”
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/3/5/14345/50395/126/469746
She actually reminds me of John Howard Lite.
Will do and say anything to win, and refuses to admit a mistake.
GG- I’ve been working away on the abacus. There are only two scenarios I can see Billary winning with.
1. Obama conceding for the good (or bad) of the party, or maybe if a huge scandal forces him out.
2. Gore, Richardson and Edwards all endorsing Billary with the latter two sending their pledged delegates over to Billary. Added to a rerun in Florida and Michigan with Billary winning each. And given that she didn’t win Michigan by much up against “uncommitted” that’s not likely.
Morning all.
I’ve just checked the caucus results – they’ve counted an entire new 4% since last night (our time). Obama still holds a 12 point lead with 40% counted.
Not sure what that translates to in delegate terms, but if there are 67 delegates and let’s assume they break similar to the popular vote, Obama will win them 37-30. Pickup of around 7, which would cancel out the primary result and the Rhode Island result (she won 5 there, Obama 3 in Vermont.)
So in the end, as others have said, she won in Ohio and that’s about it.
The interesting thing to see now is where the media goes. They’ll either hammer home the idea it is anyones game, or once this has blown over, consistently talk about the numbers game. The more the public understands of that, the worse Clinton’s position becomes. But who knows?
Obama is a breath of fresh air, but racist USA will unite to defeat him. Clinton will rally Republicans against her but does attract a lot of women. The only way out of the Dem imbroglio appears to be a Clinton-Obama ticket. It’s not ideal – can’t see it taking any southern states (Arkansas?) – but at least it might keep the bulk of new Dem supporters inside the tent.
Dunno if ESJ is around but Gary Gygax, creator of the seminal RPG Dungeons and Dragons died yesterday. And Patrick Swayze only has weeks to live and he’s dying of pancreatic cancer. He was fantastic in one of my favourite films, Donnie Darko.
http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/story/0,22606,23327985-5006301,00.html
Phil,
I agree that such a ticket would energise the Democratic side, bring out the vote. Obama supporters would be pissed, but they would get over it when they understood that he would own the nomination in four or eight years time as a result. 50 million votes wrapped up.
The problem is that it would scare a LOT of independents with her at the top of the ticket. They would flock to McCain unchecked. Meanwhile, the sexist and racist voters out there, combined with the hard rights hatred of Hillary would ensure McCain swags a heap of votes from his side of the fence without raising a finger. I like Obama. But I would not vote for a ticket with Clinton at the top. And I imagine many others would see it similarly.
I can’t see the ticket being politically viable.
On the flip side, without a join ticket, if this goes on for a few more months, you will have a situation where a chunk of the Democratic Party won’t vote because they are so disappointed and disheartened that their candidate didn’t win. Which is the problem with the long bloody primary battle.
This is a mes, and I can’t see any way it will end now anytime soon.
Phil, while I could be wrong, I was always of the opinion that most of the racially motivated groups in the US generally have been voting Republican since the 60s. I tend to think that the Dems have a strong chance of picking up Virginia in November and a very strong chance of taking Arkansas with a Clinton favourite “son” ticket.
There has never been any realistic chance of the Deep South going blue (can anyone realistically see TX, GA, AL voting Dem?), however Obama may give Louisiana a shake-up if he was the candidate.
Assume Obama retains a lead of (say) 150 pledged delegates at the end of primary season.
Hillary then needs 60% of the super-delegates to win.
Is that likely? Probably not.
Is it possible? Clearly, especially in an environment where Florida and Michigan are major bones of contention.
One thing the Dems must do, with urgency, is organise re-runs in those two states. That won’t solve everything but it will sort out one piece of baggage.
Dyno – if each of them has about 200 of the about 800 superdelegates at this stage, Clinton needs about 90% of what is left out there by that scenario.
The popular vote is over, it’s about the backroom now and how hard the Clintons think they can push (and whether the Democrats want a rehash of the ‘68 convention riot).
Pancho,
Yes, except that super-dels can change sides, even the ones that are “already committed”.
I’d go with an assumption that there are 100 rusted on for each candidate at this stage. That leaves 600 who are malleable to greater or lesser degree, and under my scenario Clinton would need 375 (or about 63%) of them.
I think this is unlikely, but I wouldn’t call it impossible.
The whole “back-room” argument will be much more subjective (and therefore much more heated) if Florida and Michigan are not sorted out, than if they are.
Unless there is a major tap on shoulder (?Al Gore coming out for Obama?) I just can’t see Hillary giving up before Penn.
Pancho- Is there any good article or book I could read about the ‘68 convention. I was only 1 year old at the time and don’t remember it well?
I don’t think there will be re-run in Florida or Michigan. Clinton will have an unfair advantage in Florida atleast as she campaigned there against the wishes of the party while Obama did not which will lead the voters to favour Clinton in any subsequent polls. No doubt Clinton is not above exploiting that fact either.
Obama is a young man and he could easily spend the next 20-30 years running as an independant and keping the Democrats out of office if they do a number on him.
A re-run is far from perfect, however it is the “least worst” solution as far as I am concerned.
“Do you have blacks, too?”
GWB to Brazilian President Fernandez Cadroso, Washington DC; Nov 8, 2001
The 3 choice no choice club welcomes new inductees
Mayo, Possum, Dingo, marky²
KR on da economy $3T & Bank’s Burning etc; Mochy’s 6 month RnR runs out Aug/Sep
…It’s 3am… Taxi Driver, Easy Rider or Paris Texas
Mr Bowe ‘omo’ jokes enough already
The least worst solution is for everyone to stick to the agreement which they made back when Clinton thought she was the inevitable candidate.
I find this interesting to see how many of us have a very strong perference on this. For the record, although I now prefer Clinton, my original preference was John Edwards, and the person I actually liked teh policies of best was Denis Kucinich, but he never had a chance of being elected. So I don’t think Clinton is great, but I think she is more likely to govern than Obama. But it is good that we are concerned for two reasons:
- this stupid US presidential race affects the whole world, including Australia
- teh analysis of it here is a lot beter than some I have read in US blogs!
Anyway, it seems to me that oure preferences are obviously biasing our views of what “should” happen. Regarding Florida and Michigan, Clinton supporters obviously want those delegates counted or, if not, a new primary there. I suspect Obama woudl win Michigan but I think Clinton would easily win Florida for mreo reasons than that she campaigned there before. Quite simply, the demographics suit her. Lots of older white, and younger hispanic voters. So obviously Obama supporters want to think of a reason/excuse to exclude that possibility. However given that Florida is one of theirlargewst population states, that is not democratic IMO.
The Jeremiads at this site are looking more and more accurate. This didn’t take long. This is going to get really ugly. Can’t the Democrat leadership step in?
Obama Moves to Sharpen His Critique of Clinton
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/05/us/politics/05cnd-campaign.html?em&ex=1204866000&en=ff568c93f648111f&ei=5087
Socrates,
Good analysis.
Not seating the Florida delegates would in my view give the Republicans a huge chance there in November (especially if the population are choosing between someone half their age – Obama – and an old guy like them – McCain).
I am not a Clinton supporter (prefer Obama) but this thing is now (pretty much inevitably) going to be close and to exclude two states seems like madness to me. Equally you can’t just count delegates who ran in a race that “didn’t count” at the time it happened – that would be grossly unfair.
The general populace won’t care what deals were made behind closed doors in 2007, they will just want everyone to have a chance to vote! Hence my least worst solution – a re-run.
I believe that the “least worst” option would have been to impose the same sanctions as the GOP did on Florida and Michigan. Halve the delegations, giving half of the superdelegates from those states their say, and while the primaries don’t mean as much, at least Michigans and Floridians don’t feel disenfranchised. Now, I think the best option is a rerun of the original primaries in those states, and seat the whole delegation.
Al,
You could almost be me – I agree with you word for word!
The GOP had it right, but the Dems are where they are, and they can’t re-do history – and a re-run is the best way forward.
The best candidates for McCain’s VP…
Colin Powell but if he doesnt want it then…
Governor of Alaska, Sarah Palin she would be a perfect fit for McCain, young, female, conservative, attractive, pro-life, tax cutter.
Diogenes, this is interesting, and probably politically apt:
Nelson, Justin A. ‘Drafting Lyndon Johnson: The President’s secrect role in the 1968 Democratic Convention’, Presidential Studies Quarterly, (vol.30, iss.4, 2000)
‘Abstract: This article argues that contrary to perceived wisdom, President Lyndon Johnson wanted to be drafted by the 1968 Democratic convention. Johnson and his aides covertly planned all aspects ofthe convention,from the amount of space allotted to each candidate to the speech that be would give at the convention on his birthday. Although Johnson withdrew from the race in March, he controlled the convention in order to allow himself the opportunity to run again. Ultimately, although his control of the convention enabled him to pass his platform, he was not drafted because neither the old party bosses nor the new forces emerging within theDemocratic Party wanted Johnson as their nominee.’
I don’t really know of any particularly good overviews. There is a heap of studd from the ‘generation of ‘68′ on the web now that their kids have shown them how to use their Macs though.
685 – Socrates
I agree with your analysis up until this point
Obama has consistently maintained the view that it would abide by the DNC’s decision. If the DNC sanctioned a re-vote, then Obama was favourable to it.
There has been no suggest that either Obama or any of his supporters are against a re-vote in either Michigan or Florida.
However, the issue is cost.
The second issue was up until recently, Clinton was against a revote.
The best tactical move Obama could make with regards to Florida and Michigan is to encourage a rerun (in spite of the pledges etc.) and see if Hillary kicks up a stink again. His worst case scenario is her winning an extra dozen or so delegates. He takes that weapon out of her armoury and is still a long way in front.
OBAMA WINS TEXAS (from the Obama site)
“By fighting the primary to a near-draw and earning a resounding victory in the caucus, the people of Texas have moved Barack Obama one step closer to claiming the Democratic nomination for president,” said Adrian Saenz. “Texans in both parties and of all ages sent a clear message that the American people are ready for the kind of change that Barack Obama will bring to Washington, DC as our 44th President.”
Because of the close finish, Senator Clinton will likely net only two delegates up-for-grabs in the Texas Primary. Based on a large sample of caucus results in all 31 state senate districts, Senator Obama is projected to post a substantial victory in the Texas caucus and, thereby, net at least seven delegates. This means that Senator Obama will win at least five more pledged delegates from Texas than Senator Clinton.
The promised animation, The Great Presidential Race, is online now. At my blog http://laborview.blogspot.com/ or YouTube. US politics is a better spectator sport than Formula One.
Asanque, Obama hasn’t opposed a new primary in Florida because he hasn’t had to. There is no reason for his campaign to make an issue out of something which isn’t an issue at this stage.
Pancho @ 693,
Agree.
Not only a good move vs Hillary, but also a good pre-emptive strike vs the Republicans who are bound, otherwise, to say to Floridians “Obama didn’t want your vote to count”.
If this primary battle goes much longer i fear the Democrats will lose the election, rather than McCain winning it.
But this gives McCain about a 3 month start on the Democrat nominee, very handy
It is true that McCain has a headstart, but that cadaverous warmonger thing he’s got going on, and the uncharismatic ‘my friends…’ is really going to hurt him when standing beside Obama.
Still it’s far better than saying ‘change’ every second word or quoting Dr King in every sentence he makes.
I dunno that it is
. Anyway, we’ll be able to see shortly.
One has to admit though the experience issue would hurt Obama if he won the nomination, it wouldnt as much if Clinton won….
You mean like the experience issue hurt Rudd?
I have read a number of posts attacking Clinton personally on this website. Being as I believe that both candidates are good, I feel compelled to ask this:
Why are people being so negative about HRC? It appears to make no sense. Also, why are people so enthusiastic about Obama, when it is emerging that he was heavily involved in dodgy land deals?
I understand preference for one candidate over the other (I prefer Clinton myself, mostly due to her forign policy), but I think that most people here should agree than (for instance) HRC is better than John “bomb, bomb, bomb Iran” McCain. Why do so many people disagree with this premise?
Oh, and one last thing: why is it that Clinton’s every win is put down to “establishment” support, while Obama’s wins are taken as evidence of some “popular mandate”? Double standards much?
The issue will be framed as experience vs. judgement. On experience, McCain trumps either candidate. The Democrats have tried this tactic before (remember Kerry was to be the choice because he ‘neutralised’ security against Bush? that worked well. The same was tried previously and since – and each time I believe Mark Penn was unsuccessfully in the mix) and it has never worked.
On the judgement side – McCain is still gunning for a war, more troops on the ground, an expanded military and more interventions. In the context of Iraq dragging on till November, this is not good for him. Hillary cannot claim better judgement, because she voted for the war and has since gotten into a tangle with regards to reading intelligence reports, apologising etc. Obama has a much more simple argument to make here.
On experience vs. judgement, Obama is better placed to take on McCain than Clinton is.
Anybody who thinks that McCain will not get an advantage from the fact he is the nominee months before the Democratic one is decided is kidding themselves.
Many voters will vote for the candidate who looks more presidential. Who looks like they can lead the country. A job much easier to do when you don’t need to be spending your time fending off attacks from another candidate. Not to mention the fact he can now take a ‘break’ and recharge his batteries, while the Dems are still at war. McCain is chuckling himself to sleep tonight.
Anyway, moving on. Socrates, that was a good analysis of the Florida/Michigan situation. I now have a question for those commenting on the debacle.
To recap, there are four possible outcomes:
1. Results stand as they are: no delegates awarded.
2. Results are counted: Clinton gets a swag of delegates.
3. New primary vote: costs money, time, justifies that the big states decision to break the convention rules
4. Hold a caucus to award delegates
The fourth option will never happen, but I put it there anyway.
My question is: if, as seems likely, the state/DNC refuses to hold a new primary, what is the best option? 1 or 2? Awarding delegates or not? Which is the least unfair on the campaign? Which is least undemocratic?
This actually reminds me of the David Hicks situation: the damage has been done, there is now no such thing as a fair result no matter how hard we try. All we can do is pick the least worse option. But for me, I would go option 1, because changing the rules mid-campaign is, in my opinion, fundamentally wrong. They may be unfair, but they were agreed to by both candidates, and they are only being questioned now because the result isn’t what was wanted.
Or option 5, the one the DNC seems to have been attempting since Super Tuesday, and that’s hope that the race ends before a decision has to be made.
A site to keep an eye on – Superdelegate Transparency Project: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Superdelegate_Transparency_Project
The reality is sinking through the hangovers:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/03/05/obama-camp-clinton-picks_n_90141.html
‘”Our projections show the most likely outcome of yesterday’s elections will be that Hillary Clinton gained 187 delegates, and we gained 183,” Obama campaign manager David Plouffe wrote in a Wednesday afternoon email to campaign supporters and reporters. “The task for the Clinton campaign yesterday was clear. In order to have a plausible path to the nomination, they needed to score huge delegate victories and cut into our lead… They failed.”
Plouffe’s numbers have not been confirmed by any other news source. But other media outlets tracking the delegate count have come up with similar, albeit larger, tallies, calculating Clinton’s net gain to be between six and eight.
The Clinton camp, when contacted by The Huffington Post, had no immediate response to Plouffe’s count.’
Max @ 707,
If it’s just a choice of 1 or 2, it has to be 1.
But 3 is the best option.
Pancho,
Plouffe is only half right.
Yes, Clinton wanted to cut into the delegate lead, and she couldn’t do it.
But her last resort is to keep Obama’s pledged delegate lead at 150 or lower, and then work on the super-dels. You can bet that’s now the plan, and yesterday’s result has kept that plan alive.
I actually don’t see it as being in Obama’s interests to push the “Hillary should quit” line too hard. I don’t think she’s going to quit, but the “she should quit” line will be used by Clinton to say to the remaining states’ voters: “Obama doesn’t want you to have a say”.
705 – Matthew Cole
1. You are making the mistake of believing the Clinton spin.
People and media are not negative against HRC because of bias, its because of her campaign tactics.
She has not played a positive campaign and has used some very questionable tactics, Obama is likely guilty of the same thing, but not to the same extent.
2. My preference is either Democrat, then McCain. I’m not sure who has posted that they prefer McCain over Clinton, who wasn’t already a conservative.
3. I haven’t seen that argument run by anyone either.
He won’t be that explicit, but his campaign has every right to point out that she cannot overtake him now. I see no way that SDs will be able to justify overturning an Obama majority of anywhere near 100. Add to this the 50 delegates that camp Obama claims to have lined up, what should be two small victories coming up and the money each will throw at Pennsylvania (negating any false momentum) and she’s going to have a hard time making such an argument seem convincing.
A great majority of opinion across the media is coming to this conclusion. Almost the entire HuffPo page is debunking Clinton lines this morn.
Well Pancho, if she quits now it will pose the interesting question – “why did she keep going till March 4?”. An especially interesting question, I would imagine, to those who have donated significant amounts of time and money to her campaign in the past two weeks.
After all, she did just about as well on March 4 as anyone could have realistically expected.
My bet is that the lady’s not for turning.
Dyno, I agree with you – I don’t personally think that she will go anytime soon (and definately not of her own volition). Particularly not before Pennsylania. SDs would need to make that decision for her.
But the reasoning behind my arguments above, that she cannot make a coherent argument for continuing, is based on the fact that she can’t really be any more out of the race than she is now. This is her ethical dilemma. How hard does she push, and what tactics will she be able to employ before the party starts to lean on her?
Asanque #713,
1. Wrong. I have visited HRC’s campaign website exactly once. Most of my information I get from a plethora of politics sites (not unlike this one, but more news-oriented), or from the media (with much cross-checking). Many of these sites show an overall leaning towards Obama, and even some of them reference it.
Fact: The only negative stories about Obama have started outside the States, and worked (slowly and quietly) their way in.
Fact: The vast majority of the negative stories about HRC has started within the States, and moved out from there.
Inference – ongoing media bias.
Fact: Clinton’s speech in Ohio was highly gracious towards both of her opponents – McCain and Obama.
2. A number of online posters (mostly of a conservative leaning) to sites such as propeller.com have posted to the effect that in a HRC/McCain contest, they’ll vote HRC, but in a Obama/McCain contest, they’ll vote McCain. Why? Most of the arguments run along the line that while McCain has an edge on HRC over national security, it doesn’t make up the difference in economic credentials. With Obama/McCain, their objection is that the “security gap” is too large to be overcome.
Also, what’s wrong with targeting the other side’s voters? Isn’t that much the point of election campaigns?
3. As #2, other sites have recorded many variations and iterations of the argument. PB arguments have included a few veiled references to this, so I thought I’d address it.
Mathew Cole: ‘Fact: Clinton’s speech in Ohio was highly gracious towards both of her opponents – McCain and Obama.’
Come on – her level of graciousness has been about equal to that of the Australian cricket team. She did not even acknowledge that there had been a contest in any of the 11 states that she lost prior to yesterday, let alone congratulate Obama. Acting petulantly when behind and humbly when you win isn’t gracious, it’s shallow.
‘Fact: The only negative stories about Obama have started outside the States, and worked (slowly and quietly) their way in.’
Like Bill’s behaviour, the Rezco saga, and the 3 a.m phone ad? There has been one source for all of these, and it ain’t outside the US. It is Hillary’s prereogative to play hardball, but she should be judged on how she acts as well.
‘Said a report from the Pew Research Center, spotlighted in the New York Times today: “The media scrutinized everything from [Obama's] legislative record to his connections to Louis Farrakhan, and frequently addressed the question of whether journalists have been too soft on the front-runner for the Democratic nomination.”
Take one example: the press relentlessly covered details of a conversation between Obama economic adviser Austan Goolsbee and the Canadian government, suggesting that Obama was telling Ohioans that he would re-negotiate NAFTA while privately assuring the Canadians otherwise. Yet on Monday the architect of the surge in Iraq and an informal adviser to Clinton, retired General Jack Keane, told the New York Sun: “I have no doubts whatsoever that if she were president in January ‘09 she would not act irresponsibly and issue orders to conduct an immediate withdrawal from Iraq, regardless of the consequences, and squander the gains that have been made.” Keane’s comments made one wonder if Clinton was telling voters one thing and the armed brass another about her stated plans to withdraw from Iraq? Yet few in the press asked the question, even after the Obama campaign sent Keane’s quotes around.’
http://www.thenation.com/blogs/campaignmatters?bid=45&pid=294631
Matthew,
I woul suggest that an equal number of people – also on a conservative angle, but mainly in the middle – would consider voting for Obama but would not, under any circumstances, vote for Clinton. I’m one of them. I lean towards McCain because of is foreign policy stance, but the presidency is not just about that, which is why I also like Obama.
Either way, I would not vote for Clinton. Period. Not that this matters – since I don’t have the right to vote – but its the alternative view for you. I’ve also been anti-Hillary for over a year now, and have not been swayed in the slightest by the media.
It’s easy to forget hat her unfavorable level is consistently in the high 40’s.
Pancho,
With due respect, Obama didn’t bother acknowledging Clinton until last night – each victory speech in the past ten or so targeted McCain, and treated her as though she was past news. It was a good tactic for his campaign (inevitability factor), as was Clinton dismissing the prior results was good for hers. Whether or not it is polite is another issue, but I’m just suggesting that both campaigns are guilty of ignoring their opponent when it suits.
Gah. Shocking spelling and grammar there, my apologies.
Max, true, and a fair point. But when Hillary was winning contests earlier he congratulated her at each turn. It was she who has changed tack constantly depending on perceptions of her performance. Her seeming ignorance that anything had happened at every one of those 11 non-concession speeches was all a very Dean-2004. And makes her graciousness now a bit rich.
717 – Matthew Cole
I’m not sure why you’d bother posting issues here in your second and third points if they relate to other boards
As to your first point, many of those facts are untrue and the rest appear to be opinion
I’m happy to debate solid facts rather then unsubstantiated hearsay. Please feel free to link an argument backing up your case.
In any case, media bias needs to be distinguished.
We have the Shanahan ‘media bias’ – where they take facts and spin them.
Whereas, there is no ‘media bias’ if a newspaper reports wrongdoing by a candidate, and as a result the candidate gets negative press.
asanque,
Your last point is questionable – after all, the media can be biased whilst only reporting facts, if they selectively emphasise some facts and downplay others.
Dyno at 726 – doesn’t that fall under category 1?
If not than, I’m happy to accept that clarification.
I renounce and deject media bias
*cough*
I reject and denounce media bias
Asanque #724,
1. I will provide links to back up my statements when you will. Don’t ask of me things that you are unwilling to do yourself.
2. Simply saying “you’re wrong”, without even making an argument, is not a debating tactic that I have any time for.
One last thing: just because you haven’t seen a specific argument put out there doesn’t mean that it doesn’t exist. It’s a big Internet.
Max #721,
That is your opinion, and you are right in hypothesising that it is the opinion of many others – I have run into many people stating as much. I would like to remind you, however, that conservatives are the GOP’s natural constituency. Even if Clinton can only draw 1 in 10 (or even 1 in 20) of them while keeping the Dem voters, that translates into a massive victory. And I have run across very few people claiming to be Democrat voters and then stating that they’ll go for McCain over Clinton. I am not saying that she is a shoo-in, or even definitively stating that she is the Dems’ best option. She is the option I prefer, and I believe that she is also the Dems’ best opportunity – mostly because I’m afraid of what the media will do to Obama if/when it’s Obama/McCain in the general election. So far, they’ve generally treated him with kid gloves, especially the Murdoch media (eg Fox). I confidently predict that this will change if he gets the Democratic nomination.
The bottom line is this: the Democrat nomination is once again a real contest, with no “inevitability” (first towards HRC, then towards Obama) in it. It will almost certainly come down to the “superdelegates”, but that’s the way it is.
Asanque #725,
I also believe that two other things can be labelled media bias:
1. Accusations based upon flimsy evidence.
2. Dredging up stories from years and years ago, that have already been done to death. For example, Whitewater. This happened over a decade ago, a Congressional inquiry and a grand jury found no evidence of Mrs. Clinton’s alleged wrongdoings, and her detractors in the media still bring it up from time to time. While ignoring any negative stories about Obama. Examples of stories that broke first overseas include the basic ties-to-Rezco story (The Times of London was the first place I noticed that), and then the story about the actual land dealings (also the Times). These examples are not a comprehensive list, only the ones I can recall off the top of my head.
During all this, not one US media source has followed-up Clinton’s allegation (until two days ago) that as the chair of a Senate Committee dealing with Afghanistan during 2007, Obama called NO meetings of this committee, as he was too busy electioneering for the Presidency. If that is not bias, what is? Choosing not to say something can also be biased.
Greg Sheridan says that “Up to now, the media has treated Obama as a cross between Bambi and Doris Day.”
http://blogs.theaustralian.news.com.au/gregsheridan/index.php/theaustralian/comments/obama_caught_out_by_3am_wake_up_call
I rather like the comparison with Bambi: the dark-eyed, wide-eyed innocent look. Mind you, he finished up as “the new Prince of the Forest” because of his “growing maturity, leadership qualities and strength.” [Wikipedia]
I’ll leave the comparison with Doris Day alone.
Mathew Cole
I thought that there was a tendency for Obama to be more popular across the political spectrum than Clinton? (not really based on anything other than my own impression).
I was under the impression while Clinton’s popularity with the ‘rusted ons’ was quite strong, her popularity outside of this sphere was limited. Wouldn’t Obama’s popularity with independents etc make him a better bet (given that one would assume that the ‘rusted ons’ would vote dem anyway?)
Mathew Cole, I can’t speak for too much US media, but I assure you that both the Washington Post and New York Times had been reporting on Rezco-Obama for months. At least from early 2007. I’m not sure if the London Times broke these stories, but I’d doubt it very much.
729 and 730 – Matthew Cole
I’m happy to provide links to disprove media bias, when you put up links to show media bias.
Its not up to me to disprove your contention until proved.
Again, until you put up an argument capable of being debated, then I will respond accordingly.
Other posters already debunked most of your ‘facts’ and I felt no need to elaborate.
I agree.
Here’s another example ‘Rezko’. That has been brought up numerous times by Illinois newspapers way before ‘The Times’.
As to your final point, given Obama joined the Committee and then campaigned for presidency one month later, you can see why he called no meetings. I suggest the reason its not reported in the press, is simply because its not a story of any note.
I haven’t even heard much of Whitewater this campaign. I have heard of Norman Hsu, which seems to be the Clinton equivalent of Rezko that is getting no media attention.
sorry, rez-ko.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tony_Rezko
This was from the Chicago Tribune
Matthew Cole,
I agree with some of the points that you make, but I’m not too convinced by the claims that some tories would vote for Clinton over McCain. The hard-right and the Clintons have a strong hate-hate relationship that hard liners will be compelled to vote against Clinton, rather than supporting McCain. What Laura Ingraham says in February and does in November are two very different things.
Lets ask two conservative leaders who they prefer.
Ann Coulter prefers Clinton over McCain.
Rush Limbaugh prefers Republicans to vote Clinton over Obama to damage the Democrats.
Happy to provide links if needed.
If there is no truth in the media bias against Hillary and for Obama. Why did SNL do a very funny and biting sketch on this. Humour often tells the truth while others try not or refuse to see.
Al,
Agree, the Republicans hate the Clintons, and if there’s one thing that will get the far Right to vote for McCain (however reluctantly), it’s to get back at a Clinton.
There’s much less history with Obama and, whilst I don’t think there’ll be many Republicans voting for him, I doubt if he will inspire the same sort of passionate antipathy (except, perhaps, amongst out-and-out racists – how many of them are there – I don’t know).
Voluntary voting gives rise to a much different dynamic than we are used to here.
740
Dyno
One of the marked advantages to Obama is his appeal across the political spectrum. He ain’t just a speech, he embodies that working across the aisle stuff while Clinton is the archetypal partisan warrior.
This isn’t about rhetoric (what else does one get from a pollie?), but votes, and he’s clearly got an edge on this cross party attraction.
Clinton will bring out the vote alright: Republicans will be voting in droves against her.
739 – The Finnigans
I agree Finnigans. I rely on ‘The Chaser’ for all my incisive and fact based journalism…..
There are still quite a few posts here that make the assumption (as I did until yesterday) that the superdelegates would never move to overturn a clear lead in pledge delegates.
On my part, this assumption was based on the proposition that the superdelegates realise that to veto the choice of the punters would invite a November loss for the nominee, not to mention a hefty primary challenge in their own races.
I still think that proposition is close to unarguable, but there is now a very real possibility that Clinton will overtake Obama in the national popular vote after PA. In that situation, suddenly Clinton isn’t asking the superdelegates to overturn the punters’ pick. She can say she is the punters’ pick and is simply asking the superdelegates to overturn the sort of electoral quirk that Democrats well remember from 2000.
I realise that FL and MI feed into this scenario in all sorts of ways, which is why I think there needs to be a revote, and will probably be one. I really think their needs to be a clear democratic rationale for the way the superdelegates move. Increasingly though, I am coming to the view that the only rationale that will not arouse screams of anger from one of the two camps is to go with the winner of the popular vote. For that to happen there needs to be a clear winner, and hence a revote in FL and MI.
Although I would prefer an Obama candidacy, particularly because he continues to do better than Clinton with independents and in head-to-head hypotheticals with McCain, I would be prepared to see the superdelegate decision go against him if he loses the popular vote. If he can’t win the popular vote in the Democratic primaries, I have my doubts about whether he can win nationally anyway, however much I would love to see that happen.
On another subject, what’s Howard doing getting the Neocon version of the Oscar? Trying to prove how utterly irrelevant he’s now become?
The only good thing to come of his dribbling nonsense is that it’s a dead fish slap to Horatio Hornet. Good to see the Rodent giving Brendan07 a slap from the grave.
Funny, really.
Ben Smith on Politico has reported that there may be a move of 50 (so far uncommitted) Super delegates to Obama sometime this week. Perhaps the beginning of a move to end this sooner rather than later?
Ex Norfik Local, I can see where that argument is coming from, but the twofold response will be hard for her to dismiss.
First, the contest is about delegates, not the popular vote, in the same way that the General will be about college votes and not the popular vote. This has nothing to do with courts or spoiled, lost or contested ballots like in 2000, but rather party rules.
The Senate has 100 members, who, by a popular vote argument, hold disproportionate power. But these are the constituational rules, just as delegate count remains what matters here. It is not really ‘undemocratic’ if you play by the rules of the democracy.
Second, the only way that Clinton will overcome a delegate deficiency is to convince SDs to vote contrary to how their districts voted. If this happens on a wide scale there will be rioting at the Convention.
From here, Hillary can only win by stealth and/or bending rules.
>Ben Smith on Politico has reported that there may be a move of 50 (so far uncommitted) Super delegates to Obama sometime this week. Perhaps the beginning of a move to end this sooner rather than later?
These plans may now be “on hold”:
“Assuming that Sen. Clinton at best would eke a victory in Ohio Tuesday to end her long losing streak, prominent Democrats were organizing a major private intervention. A posse of party leaders would plead with her to end her campaign and recognize Obama as the Democratic standard-bearer. To buttress this argument, several elite unelected super-delegates (including several previous Clinton supporters) were ready to come out for Obama. Those plans went on hold Tuesday night”.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/03/why_she_isnt_dead.html
Matthew at 729
Of course, and I don’t claim that I am speaking for a group of people – I simply wanted to portray the alternative view.
The other thing to consider though is this. I have no idea as to what the number of ‘independent voters’ take the stage at election time and couldn’t find anything in a 2 minute google search, but lets take a guess and say that 20% of voters are not affiliated with a party come November
The question is, even if Clinton claimed 1/20 GOP voters (which I very sincerely doubt, but this is just an example) how many voters would the Dems lose from the independent bracket? It is well publicised that the key to both Obama and McCain’s success is that of the independent voter. So, if Clinton tops the ticket, that niche of voters would suddenly swing to McCain. She may grab some GOP voters, but at what independent cost?
Recall, also, that unlike in 2006 there is no massive push (including independents) to overhaul the government. The new Congress has a 20% approval. So the true independents won’t be swayed by party per se, but by the two choices in front of them.
All this is purely hypothetical of course, and completely partisan. I might do a bit more digging around tonight, because it would be an interesting analysis to run through. But I do agree the Democrat race isn’t over. I just can’t see how Clinton can win the nomination without taking the pledged delegate count with her, and subsequently how it can be done without tearing the party apart. Although, as Ex Norfik says, the popular vote might alter that slightly. We will see.
Let me re-state my prediction on how things will pan out:
1. After the Pennsylvania primary, which Hillary will win. Obama will be in front still in PDs, but not by a killer number. Hillary will be in front in the popular votes counting FL and MI. So the question of legitimacy can be argued by both sides.
2. So the SDs and the Dem Establishment have to decide.
3. They will make Obama an offer he cannot refuse (he should understand that very well since he’s from Chicago, my kind of town).
4. The offer is that Obama will run as the veep and Hillary will serve only one term.
5. The Dream Team will then go on to smash Vietnam war hero McCain into pieces just as the Americans have smashed Vietnam and Cambodia into pieces. McCain should understand that as he was one of heroes that have smashed Vietnam and Cambodia into pieces.
6. Pig will fly as Hillary is a pig and she will fly, as pig is the luckiest animal there is in the Chinese astrology.
7. There will be world peace and all nations will live side-by-side in harmony. But once a great satan will always remain a great satan.
Yo Ho Ho #732,
I believe that you are mostly correct. Clinton’s appeal with independant voters is limited. However, my impression is that she is getting substantial numbers of Republican voters to consider going for her.
Also, it is a matter of “where” the voters are. Under the US election rules, every state is “winner-takes-all”, so HRC’s wins in the traditional battleground states of Florida and Ohio, as well as the (Electoral College) delegate-rich states of California and New York, all by significant margins over Obama, should be taken into account.
Here’s the current list of swing states as of 2004:
New Hampshire (Clinton win 39%-36%, 4 votes).
Pennsylvania (not yet held, Clinton leading in polls 47%-35%, 21 votes).
Arkansas (Clinton win 70%-26%, 6 votes).
Florida (Clinton win 50%-33%, 27 votes).
Virginia (Obama win 64%-35%, 13 votes).
Iowa (Caucus) (Obama win 38%-29%, 7 votes).
Michigan (never mind: the primary was meaningless as BO’s name not on ticket).
Minnesota (Caucus) (Obama win 66%-33%, 10 votes).
Missouri (Obama win 49%-48%, 11 votes).
Ohio (Clinton win 54%-44%, 20 votes).
Wisconsin (Obama win 58%-41%, 10 votes).
Colorado (Closed caucus) (Obama win 66%-32%, 9 votes).
Nevada (Caucus) (Clinton win 50%-45%, 5 votes).
New Mexico (Clinton win, 49%-48%, 5 votes).
Oregon (not yet held, Clinton leading in polls 36%-28%, 7 votes).
Take 1 – including all states except Michigan.
Clinton is better suited to win (by latest projections) 95 “swing state” votes, while Obama is better suited to win 60 swing state votes. Disregarding the polling results in Pennsylvania and Oregon, this difference becomes 67-60.
Take 2: excluding “polls” (primaries not held yet) and close results:
Clinton picks up 58 votes, while Obama picks up 49 votes. I removed the New Hampshire, Missouri and New Mexico results from this list, as they were too close to be definitive support for one candidate over the other.
A lot of BO’s Democrat primary support comes from states that are strong Republican states. These include Alabama (1976, 26%), Alaska (pre-1968, 25%), Georgia (1992, 17%), Idaho (pre-1968, 39%), Kansas (1964, 25%), Louisiana (1996, 15%), Nebraska (1964, 33%), North Dakota (pre-1968, 27%) and Utah (1964, 47%). The first number is the last year that these states voted Democrat, the second is the difference betweeen the votes for the parties from 2004. Disregarding anything less than 20% (swings of up to 10%), that still leaves 7 states worth 35 electoral votes where BO has won the primary but hasn’t a hope in hell of winning in November. Adding the remainder, the total comes to 9 states and 59 votes.
On the other hand, among Clinton’s wins, Oklahoma (1964, 32%) and Texas (1976, 23%) are the only strong Republican states, worth a combined total of 41 votes. The point that I am getting at is this: Obama may well win the nomination due to a strong Democrat vote in these states which will not, under any realistic circumstances, vote Democrat in November. If so, the Democrats are in trouble in November.
I’ll believe that when I see it Claude (745). Rumours and bluff are everywhere at the moment.
I doubt we’ll see them making any moves before Penn. They’re like a deer caught in the headlight not knowing which way to jump. By the time this fight is over, it will likely be too late. McCain will already be getting up a major head of steam.
After Penn ENL is right (743). In spite of the number of states and pledged delegates BHO has won, HRC will likely be able to mount a case for winning the popular vote. Some SD’s will be swayed by this.
Whatever happens, Hillary is going to take this all the way to the Convention – unless (as I’ve said for a while) the SD’s pull the rug out from under her. To do that, they would need a compelling argument – and at the moment there are several compelling arguments for either side.
So they remain stuck in the headlight unable to get out of the McCain Train’s way. They either jump or die – and they need to do it long before Penn.
I just can’t see it happening.
hahahahahaha
Sorry. I’m just trying to imagine Hillary sitting in the office two and a half years after inauguration, planning her ‘I am not seeking a second term’ live speech to the nation.
hahahahahaha
Mathew Cole – that argument can, and has been turned on its head by several commentators: if Democratic states will vote for the Dem candidate, then the fact that Obama can also do well outside of these is to his advantage. He will take places like NY anyway, then give himself a shot elsewhere. From http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-creamer/clintons-big-state-myt_b_90115.html:
‘Most of the “Big States” she has won are not battleground states in the fall. New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts and California are solid blue states where Obama would do as well or better than Clinton in a general election against McCain.’
Have a look through the rest of the article – he offers persuasive arguments to all the issues you raise.
Matthew Cole
Thank you for that lengthy analysis.
Your primary argument requires Florida to be included. Whilst I’m not saying that Clinton wouldn’t win in a re-vote, it might well be a lot closer if both parties campaigned.
I’m also not certain of the link that just because Obama lost the primaries in Ohio and Florida to Clinton, it means that the Republicans would definitely beat him in November. My contention is that Obama beat McCain comprehensively in comparing the votes in the two primaries in Ohio. Will this translate in November? Who knows.
Sometimes you get an insight into the mind of the bigwigs by listening to what they don’t say, and in the case of Howard Dean on Colbert last night, it went approxiamtely like this:
Stephen: So, tell us, who is the winner tonight?
Dean: Ah, I’d say the American people won tonight Stephen, as they always do.
(or words to that effect)
When polly wranglers start talking like that it makes you wanna reach for the eject button. What it said to me is: hey, I’m not going to answer that, I cannot bring myself to say Hillary and I can’t say Obama, so I’m going to flub it.
There’s one hell of a constipated party machine in need of a laxative dose, and pronto.
The Finnigans @ 749
I agree this may be the only real ‘win-win’ and raised a similar idea myself further back in this thread. I am an Obama fan myself but believe that a lot of his reform agenda could be carried out or begun from the VP role.
However it’s incredibly unlikely for several reasons:
1. How could Obama justify to all his donors pulling out when he was actually ahead in the race?
2. Despite the qualities for which I admire him, Obama is a politician and the chances of such a selfless, altruistic decision from any politician is frankly close to zero.
3. Hillary promising to only serve one term would very likely be an empty promise. Particularly if her first term went well, what person wouldn’t start to think they really deserved a second?
This should put paid to the myth peddled by Obama dreamers that only Obama can beat McCain.
Both Obama And Clinton Hold Edge Over McCain
By Jon Cohen and Jennifer Agiesta
Washington Post Staff Writers
Thursday, March 6, 2008; Page A09
Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) kicks off his general-election campaign trailing both potential Democratic nominees in hypothetical matchups, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll.
Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.) leads McCain, who captured the delegates needed to claim the Republican nomination Tuesday night, by 12 percentage points among all adults in the poll; Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) holds a six-point lead over the GOP nominee. Both Democrats are buoyed by moderates and independents when going head to head with McCain and benefit from sustained negative public assessments of President Bush and the war in Iraq.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2008/03/05/ST2008030502748.html
#756 – Matt – Que Sera Sera. What ever will be, will be.
757 – That article seems to confirm what I believe. That whilst both Democrats would beat McCain, Obama would do it far more easily.
“Ten Reasons Obama Slipped” , a real analysis on why the halo is slipping, via Crikey Ref.
1. NAFTA Flap
2. Rezko
3. A Blunder in the Last Debate
4. The Red Phone Ad
5. No Effective Counterpunch to Clinton’s “Fighter” Image
6. A Weak Economic Message
7. Too much time in Ohio
8. An Improvident Trip to Rhode Island
9. Failure to Bring Bill Richardson and John Edwards on Board
10. SNL, Jon Stewart, Letterman
http://www.progressive.org/node/6159/print
Experience Unlimited Presents
Kristol Klear Klaptrap…’SHARING OUR ‘COMe ON’ VALUES’
Guess who
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23328945-5014047,00.html
751 -
Ferny – agreed. The damage in the closeness of the contest will only hurt the Dems increasingly, to the benefit of McCain. Although I truly hope that after the debacle of the last 8 years most voters would prefer either Democrat to a Republican, and would support whoever gets the nomination.
And what else can Obama and Clinton do other than battle it out?
If either of them pulls out at this point with the strong support they are both getting they are going to piss off their supporters in a big way. And my understanding is that there is a significant committed Anti-Clinton sentiment, whereas Obama does not engender the same dislike among conservatives who are disillusioned with the Repubs. – Bit like our own Kev and Mark Latham maybe.
761 codger -
did someone forget to tell him he lost the election because his “ideas” were rejected? The man’s deluded.
Wrong thread I know but a timeley reminder of the dangerous attitudes and arrogance of the past admnistration and the one that is about to hopefully exit the US. Thankfully.
re post 762
If they want a Democrat in the Whitehouse one of the 2 remaining contenders
must withdraw……. otherwise 2 terms of Mr Mccain
they must forget egos!!!! & come to a deal very soon
Johnny goes to Washington. Same old, same old. Railing against the voters rejection. An event which, if noticed at all, may gird the loins of those who reject the Conservative and Clinton messages preferring the hope for change expressed by Obama.
Australia’s John Howard Receives 2008 Irving Kristol Award. AEI Online
Publication Date: January 3, 2008
‘American Enterprise Institute president Christopher DeMuth announced today that former Australian prime minister John Winston Howard is the recipient of AEI’s Irving Kristol Award for 2008. The annual award, selected by the Institute’s Council of Academic Advisers, is given to individuals who have made exceptional intellectual or practical contributions to improved government policy, social welfare, or political understanding’.
http://www.aei.org/publications/pubID.27308,filter.all/pub_detail.asp
Scholars and Fellows include the immediately recognisable names:
Lynn V Cheney
Newt Gingrich
Paul Wolfowitz
John R. Bolton
Robert B Helms
R Glenn Hubbard
Richard Perle
Irving Kristol is himself Emeritus Fellow. In July 2002, President George W. Bush awarded Kristol the Presidential Medal of Freedom
Further excerpt from the same AEI Press release, January 2008
‘As the editorial page editor of the Australian and former AEI staff member Tom Switzer has written, “[Howard] presided over the longest economic boom since the gold rushes of the nineteenth century.”
Interesting to note that ABC PM reports that the AEI notes the solid rejection of John Howard by the voters, though not going so far as to say that he lost his own seat. Yet this rejection in no way, accordingly, will detract from his role as an International Commentator. Oh, I see. Not going to be a commentator, JWH, I thought you said.
Ah, you meant in Australia. Sorry, I must have misheard you. Again. What’s that, not appreciated?
It will be fascinating to compare the eventual considered conclusions of Howard’s Australian biographers as against the lauding of the AEI.
John Howard himself may find it instructive and curiously contrasting to read the speech by the 2005 Irving Kristol Award recipient.
Confessions of a Liberal
By Mario Vargas Llosa
http://www.aei.org/publications/pubID.22053,filter.all/pub_detail.asp
In politics, disunity is death. HRC’s chief strategist, Mark Penn is being white-anted by his own people. Nor very good for esprit-de-corps after yesterday’s “stunning victory”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/05/AR2008030503621.html
761
codger
I jest lurv that ah-literashion ya got thar codger:
Kristol Klear Klaptrap
…it’s gotta kinda magic to it, as Manuel would say: ¿Que?
Crikey-I’m quite nauseated at the thought that one of the greatest writers ever allowed himself to receive the same award as that list of reprobates. I know he did run unsuccessfully for President of Peru but you’ve gotta have some standards. I keep waiting patiently year after year for Llosa to win the Nobel Prize…
BTW I just read a very ESJ story about the Nobel Prize. Everyone knows it was left by Alfred Nobel, the inventor of dynamite, in his will. He was one of three famous brothers. His most famous brother was Ludwig, who pioneered oil production in Russia in competition with Rockefeller’s Standard Oil from the US. Ludwig Nobel died young from overwork and heart attack at 57. When the newpaper’s did his obituaries, several got the wrong brother and Alfred was in the invidious position of reading his own obituaries, which condemned him as a death merchant who got rich by finding a new way to main and kill people.
He was so mortified that he changed his will so bequeath a huge sum for the Nobel Prizes to honour the best in humanity, and resurrect public opinion.
Turnbull put on a solid performance on 730 though wouldn’t be budged on the leadership question any Labor supporters not sure of Liberal policy go to 730’s website and watch the interview.
Back to the US elections…a dream team ticket will never happen, bad blood (Bush-McCain 2000), but also having someone who so badly wants to be President as your VP is not constructive and also the baggage that both candidates will weigh them down.
Obama should pick a Southern Democrat ideally a Governor with executive experience.
Clinton should pick a Southern Democrat (Not Edwards) or go with Evan Bayh who backed her since day one…
If the Democrats want to win the Presidency they’ll pick Obama, but if the pick Clinton, McCain will romp it in, Obama is no certainty but he doesn’t need to mention the generational difference because a picture tells a thousand words.
My views of Obama would be more positive if he presented and articulated his policies and became a substance candidate i wouldnt have an unfavourable view of him atm.
765
Crikey, that’s a great speech! I hope he gave it in Spanish, or some of the hallowed Neocons would have surely fainted!
Compared to Howard’s dull self-adulatory auto-obituary, this is inspired:
For example, there are liberals who believe that economics is the field through which all problems are resolved and that the free market is the panacea for everything from poverty to unemployment, marginalization and social exclusion. These liberals, true living algorithms, have sometimes generated more damage to the cause of freedom than did the Marxists, the first champions of the absurd thesis that the economy is the driving force of the history of nations and the basis of civilization. It simply is not true. Ideas and culture are what differentiate civilization from barbarism, not the economy. The economy by itself, without the support of ideas and culture, may produce optimal results on paper, but it does not give purpose to the lives of people; it does not offer individuals reasons to resist adversity and stand united with compassion or allow them to live in an environment permeated in humanity. It is culture, a body of shared ideas, beliefs and customs–among which religion may be included of course–that gives warmth and life to democracy and permits the market economy, with its competitive, cold mathematics of awarding success and punishing failure, to avoid degenerating into a Darwinian battle in which, as Isaiah Berlin put it, “liberty for wolves is death to the lambs.” The free market is the best mechanism in existence for producing riches and, if well complemented with other institutions and uses of democratic culture, launches the material progress of a nation to the spectacular heights with which we are familiar. But it is also a relentless instrument, which, without the spiritual and intellectual component that culture represents, can reduce life to a ferocious, selfish struggle in which only the fittest survive.
…to which one can only add: Amen.
I found this comforting news for us Obama fans. Billary is losing the popular vote by ONE MILLION
RCP doesn’t include Washington state where Obama has another net +300,000 by caucus estimates performed on some of the Kos blogs, Iowa which Obama also won, and Nevada which Clinton barely won. With an estimate based on turnout and percentage won, Obama has a net difference of 1,000,000 votes in the popular vote over Clinton.
If you look at the bottom of the page at RCP, its says “Iowa, Nevada, Washington & Maine Have Not Released Popular Vote Totals.”
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/democratic_vote_count.html
Let’s face it, when it comes to building dramatic tension, cell phones just don’t cut it.
Wed. March 5:
http://news.yahoo.com/edcartoons/patoliphant;_ylt=AohTOio9v9BxyM0IV8PWRwQl6ysC
Thurs March 6:
http://news.yahoo.com/edcartoons/tomtoles;_ylt=ArVflwaipwJY_fMuD2s_cIhT_b4F
Glen, Turnbull was simply the worst i have ever seen him.
His answers to what would he would do about inflation, i am still trying to figure out the difference between his approach and the Governments’ . Turnbull should have admitted the faults of the previous government and gone from their but instead he basically said they made no mistakes.
On productivity he made a mess of it, five years no growth in this area and it was caused by the mining boom. Yep the mining boom, why doesn’t he just admit that the previous government was not about increasing labour input for labour production but reducing labour wages overall in the makeup of overall turnover.
What is a worry is that both sides of political spectrum are no different on economic policy, both support the market and economic rationalism.
All the claptrap about handing Iraq to al-Qaeda by the US withdrawing overlooks one astounding and incontrovertable fact: the US has already handed Iraq to the disciples of the Iranian ayatollahs, and there’s no better public display of this fact than Ahmadenijad’s recent red carpet welcome to Baghadad.
As one well qualified writer puts it:
There can be no peace, whether in Lebanon, Gaza or Iraq, without the cooperation of the ayatollahs of Iran. If that was the intention of the neoconservative cabal that led Bush into this folly, its members should be tried for treason.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/03/05/EDKEVDSLU.DTL
…Expect Obama to be raising this little inconsistency with the Republican ‘National Security ? US” brigade.
Diogenes # 771
That is extremely comforting! Still strikes me as a little odd that Obama excised the usual reference to being ahead in votes from his speech yesterday. That made me think his camp must have at least begun to worry that Clinton might catch up in votes. But 1 million is a lot. Does the 1 million difference include or exclude Florida?
Like I was trying to say yesterday, “it’s not about the math [sic]”
http://blogs.cqpolitics.com/politicalinsider/2008/03/its-not-about-the-math.html
776
John Ryan
Which is why Clinton has started talking about her ‘victories’ in Michigan and Florida!
For real!
The lady sure has no shame, whatever qualifications she may have apart from being Mrs Bill.
If Gore and Edwards and Dean don’t all step out of the shadows and put an end to this thing, she’ll do serious damage with that kind of talk.
Here is a link for all the permutations of the popular vote, using primaries, caucuses, sanctioned etc etc. The 1 million figure is for sanctioned primaries (ie excludes Florida and Michigan) and includes the four “missing” caucuses of Iowa, Nevada, Washington & Maine. With Florida included it’s 700,000 lead to Obama.
http://www.centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/article.php?id=FRC2008021901
Read ‘em and weep Billary fans. You are still one million votes behind. Let’s not hear any more of that “How unfair! Billary will win the popular vote but might not win on delegates” bullsh*t anymore! Unless of course she can make up one million votes.
How soon will McCain name his running mate?
776 JR
I’ll see you on that one and raise you a Halperin:
Clinton Wins Big, but Math Is Troubling
http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1719614,00.html
There is a fascinating battle going on in the media which is about 50:50 on whether it’s maths vs politics (basically Obama spin vs Billary spin). The battle is similar on the blogs including this one.
Politics is never just about the maths. If it were then every SD would vote for the one with the most pledged delegates. Is that gonna happen? Of course not! As I’ve said all along, SD’s will vote one way or the other for a thousand different reasons – and the delegate count will be only one thing they’ll consider. For many, it won’t be the decisive factor.
As we gather round our computer screens tonight, all over America the pressure is being applied, screws are being tightened, favours are being called in, threats and promises are being made, alliances are being established, plans are being laid by both sides to ensure their candidate gets up.
Only the SDs can end it now by sufficient numbers making a decision that puts the contest beyond the reach of one of the candidates. As I said above, they need to do this well before PA or the real battle will be lost before it begins.
#780 – Dio – it was my line “The mathematics is for the academic, the politics is for the people”. I give you two guesses which one will win out.
see #228 – http://blogs.crikey.com.au/pollbludger/?p=819&cp=3#comment-132453
Obama’s team are clearly playing the maths card very hard at the moment, trying to take the wind out of Billary’s sails. She is playing the politics card for all she’s worth. The media and public seem split, but as Ferny says it’s the super-delegates who are the ones that need convincing. I’m very pleased by the talk of a 50 SD block killing off Billary as suggested by Ben Smith. Let’s face it. the only reason Billary isn’t dead in the water already is because she has a 40 SD lead. A 50 block of SD’s would just put the SDs in line with their actual party, instead of killing off the party they presumably love.
Clinton cannot win without destroying the chances of the democratic party. It will be interesting to see whether she cares more about the party or herself. She can’t get ahead on pledged delegates, she can’t get ahead on popular vote, and the only way to win is to arm twist the supers. See how the party responds to that.
Dio at 771, 778 and 780:
Here’s a bit of Democratic Party history from 40 years ago.
“In 1968 the antiwar forces came to the (Democratic) convention in Chicago fired with the sense that their candidates, Eugene McCarthy and Bobby Kennedy, had crushed Hubert in the primaries. But just as Richard Daley’s police battered the protesters, so too did the party machine crush the antiwar forces and force Hubert Humphrey down their throats inside the convention hall. Humphrey was never able to reunite the fractured party and lost to Richard Nixon.”
http://counterpunch.com/cockburn03052008.html
“Won’t you please come to chicago just to sing
In a land that’s known as freedom how can such a thing be fair
won’t you please come to chicago for the help that we can bring
We can change the world
rearrange the world……..”
From Graham Nash’s song “Chicago”
The fix is already in. There will be blood. This is America we’re talkin’ about here.
Plus ca change, mon ami, plus ca change.
778
Diogenes
Hate to be a party pooper, but did you notice the date on that article?
It’s Feb 22nd, and, ah, a bit has happened since then.
Better look for the updated version!
Thanks William and bludgers for something I might have to rely on the MSM for!! Most informative commentary.
It’s not that clear cut Erytnicam. Hillary doesn’t see it as a choice between what’s best for her or what’s best for the party. She believes that her victory IS what’s best for the Party – and for America.
And let’s not underestimate the Clintons’ ability to press SDs into their service. They have a lot of clout in the Party and they’re using it. Hillary isn’t finished by a long shot.
Lets assume Obama wins the next 2 contests on Saturday and Tuesday as the polls say he will fairly easily.
If the Supers don’t move in a block to Obama and finish off Clinton by Friday of next week, then you can be as sure as Rudy Guilliani mentioning 9/11 in his next sentence that Obama is Dead and the Supers are going to give it to Hillary at the convention.
If it is to be Obama it will be by Friday next week.
If not, then it is Hillary at the convention.
EC
Those Counterpunch articles are great aren’t they. I read an article on ‘68 a few hours ago and was sickened by the similarities to ‘08. As the article you quoted said:
“McCain could not have hoped for a better day.”
And even Nader’s starting to look more attractive to the disillusioned Democrat voters.
some of the latest news is the 50 SD reports have been blocked, and most have decided to “sit tight for now”:
Just 12 hours ago Associated press:
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5g8OZ4Qa7PO_vNCk1YCrHJydRk3_QD8V7IJA00
I like the references to the Superbowl
And an interesting article, though a little dated now in this on-again, off-again hour by hour play-off:
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0208/8762.html
My hub was right he’s been telling me its now a football game going into the final quarter.
Dio, your other link is up to date (incl Texas and Ohio) but still has Obama with nearly 600k lead.
That’s convincing enough.
It’s not a football game Rain – it’s a relay race. and the opposition has just passed the baton to their final runner while the team we’re cheering for is still figuring out who the final runner will be.
788 – It doesn’t matter what Hillary believes, she’s still knows what she’s doing. I bet everyone who’s ever run for president think they were the best person for the job, bit her current strategy of saying Obama would be worse than McCain is obnoxious and self serving. If it comes down to it I expect the supers to push her out after Pensylvania where she will fail to significantly close the gap.
789
HarryH, I don’t think the SDs failure to decide tells us anything about their intentions. It only tells us that they’re paralysed by the arguments from both sides. If the SDs decided to go with Hillary, they would do so long before the Convention.
Their silence only tells us they can’t make up their minds.
But as McCain grabs the final baton change and dashes for the finish line the SDs must surely know that decision time is upon them NOW.
They birthed Al Capone, The Sting, Jack Daniels and are masters of the art of poker-playing – throw in 150 million individual voters playing “whats in it for me?”
and they call it “math”
I chuckled with the comment in the 2nd article though, if SDs should go with their own state or districts voting patterns, then Kerry and Kennedy have to support Clinton??? … MUAHAHAHA
and “we have a lot of kissing and making up to do as a Party”
*snirtle*
KR The date was 22/2. Was too lazy to work out the figures since then but now you’ve made me!
Since then Billary gained 330,000 yesterday in the primaries, but will lose the popular vote in the Texas caucus by quite a bit (only 40% counted). So the 600,000 is probably more like 700K lead to Obama.
If Hillary is indeed saying Obama would be worse than McCain she is just writing McCain’s campaign ads and does not deserve the nomination
Would either of them be fighting so hard in the primaries if the Democrats weren’t favourites to win the Whitehouse in November, neither will back down because they essentially believe whoever can win the nomination will be President and it is this prise that is going to leave Hillary in the race and if it is close as it will be Obama here are my predictions….
Hillary will win
Indiana
Pennsylvania
Oregon
Puerto Rico
Obama will win
North Carolina
Mississippi
Wyoming
West Virginia
Montana
Kentucky
Given this and the fact that neither candidate will bow out given the stakes its going to be a bloody convention with both Obama and Clinton having their speeches to convince the delegates and supers to back them, either way something has got to give…meanwhile George W Bush tap dances seeing the Democrats having to duke it out for another 3 months giving McCain the best chance to win.
798 – http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/03/04/clinton-mccain-has-more-_n_89758.html
She is indeed. Try not to lose your lunch when viewing
The republicans won’t even need to make attack ads, they will just slap a ‘paid for by john mccain’ at the end of these.
Just goes to show you Erytnicam that Clinton will do anything to win an election, in fact she’d rather her Party lose the Whitehouse if she wasnt the nominee…
Sounds abit like Howard deciding to stay on and lead the Coalition to a smashing defeat just to stop Costello from becoming PM…he’d rather go down ‘gloriously’ than give up the Prime Ministership…
Clinton is doing McCain alot of favours such a torrid primary campaign is looking so much like 1968 its not funny and guess who won….the Republicans…the only winner out of the drawn out Democrat primaries is President McCain sorry Senator McCain.
The americans are used to having same party candidates chewing each other out. as soon as the nominee is chosen all is forgotten and they unite. I think too much is being made of the effects of this process on the average voter. In Australia it is a different matter, over there the psychology allows for these skirmishes with little impact on the final result. A democrat will win the next election, the Republicans are on the nose.
I think people are forgetting Robert Kennedy was murdered during the ‘68 campaign. I believe he would have won that.
Ferny,
If they are going to go for Obama, there is no better time than after he wins the next 2 contests. Any Obama super must come out then for the good of the Party.
If they don’t come out and kill off Hillary soon after these 2 victories you can assume they never will.
In that scenario you can be sure as hell that Hillary has the numbers with the Supers.
And if Hillary has the supers, they can’t move until the convention.
If Obama hasn’t got the nom in 2 weeks, he won’t get it. simple logic.
All of the spins for Hillary, the one that had and will cut through is “Hillary is a fighter” message. This one is potent because it is a simple, flexible yet powerful message. Obama then McCain, be afraid, be very very afraid.
Team Straight Talk will have a field day with that material with Hillary saying Obama has less experience to bring to the Whitehouse than John McCain LOL!
I hope Bush campaigns with McCain, the Democrat win will be that much sweeter and more decisive.
“And if Hillary has the supers, they can’t move until the convention.”
Harry @ 804
Why can’t they move till the convention? If they do that, they will lose the Presidency.
It is far more logical for the SDs to declare their hand asap. If they have decided to go with Hillary they will make it known long before Denver.
I do agree that if they are going to go with Obama they need to do it by the end of next week. In fact, I think they need to make a call either way by that time or get ready to refer to Grandpa as President McCain.
806 Glen – the average voter will be concerned with more important things by then. Those petty debating points no difference in our election and will have no effect over there either.
After a long drought, It’s good to see you enjoying politics again Glen.
“made no difference”
Ah to have one of your own side say you arent up to the job is going to hurt and alot of Hillary supporters will jump ship and vote McCain if Obama wins the nomination her words are going to hurt the Democrats regardless…
Hey im enjoying local politics its far better than living in a one party state…damn lol!
Glen, I don’t agree with a lot you say but I’m glad you’re still here.
Ferny,
they can’t move for Hillary yet because of Obama’s lead and because he is still strong.
seeing that Obama won’t lose his lead they have to wait until he is weakened.
this is Hillary’s strategy. To weaken him. She knows the supers can’t move on a strong candidate with a substantial lead.
Believe me, if the supers haven’t moved for Obama by next Friday or very very soon after, then they won’t.
If i was Obama, behind close doors to Dean,Gore,McCain and Richardson, i would be threating all out war if they don’t stop Hilary.
She is behind, she can’t catch up, but she won’t stop without being stopped.
On electability though, If I was “Super-Delegate for a Day”, with no druthers for either candidate, and no personal stake in the outcome (eg having my own upcoming re-election to worry about, and potential backlash from my own voter support, which is behind some of the SDs trickling to Obama in recent weeks)
Then I would go with the Geo-Politico-Math to make my decision:
Specific “key” states are what matters, Wyoming — Obama gets all the delegates? He’s welcome to them, MUAHAHAHA, along with all the cows — WY is as red as red as red as can be…All yours Barack
That state wont put a Democrat in the White House.
.
So in my maths, I’m excluding those delegates from my totals.
.
The only reason they get delegates is to reward loyal Dems with seats at the Convention, which is a Really Big Deal for Party policy as well, it goes for days, as they nut out their campaign and the congress are all happy to support the platform. Thats why most of those sorts of states gets caucuses, the caucuses are designed for Party discussion from grass-roots activists to take policy platforms up the line. And they get a free trip to Denver.
.
caucuses also have 2 and sometimes 3, more steps to go through, those delegates go to District and County and State Conventions, most of which will not be settled until April and May. They can change again at each convention.
.
Don’t you love democracy US Dem Party style?? *chuckle*
.
“Cross-Over” voting in Primaries is an American cultural tradition. Plenty of Dems cross-over in the last Repub primaries to try and vote against Bush getting nominated in 2004, to knock him out of the race. Didn’t work, unfortunately. In some states, particularly red ones, the cross-over voters on “Be a Democrat for A Day” voters for Obama was nearly 30% (eg Wisconsin).
.
The game with people like Rush Limbaugh and other right-wingers saying they endorse one or other Democrat over McCain, is to try and screw-up the Democrats into chaos and confusion on the ground. They often cancel each other out, when they get conflicting endorsements. This is well-known and all part of the “game” for Americans, thats why so many love whats been happening.
.
Now thats the maths – cold, hard, maths.
.
Pasting from above:
.
New Hampshire (Clinton win 39%-36%, 4 votes).
Pennsylvania (not yet held, Clinton leading in polls 47%-35%, 21 votes).
Arkansas (Clinton win 70%-26%, 6 votes).
Florida (Clinton win 50%-33%, 27 votes).
Virginia (Obama win 64%-35%, 13 votes).
Iowa (Caucus) (Obama win 38%-29%, 7 votes).
Michigan (never mind: the primary was meaningless as BO’s name not on ticket).
Minnesota (Caucus) (Obama win 66%-33%, 10 votes).
Missouri (Obama win 49%-48%, 11 votes).
Ohio (Clinton win 54%-44%, 20 votes).
Wisconsin (Obama win 58%-41%, 10 votes).
Colorado (Closed caucus) (Obama win 66%-32%, 9 votes).
Nevada (Caucus) (Clinton win 50%-45%, 5 votes).
New Mexico (Clinton win, 49%-48%, 5 votes).
Oregon (not yet held, Clinton leading in polls 36%-28%, 7 votes).
.
one extra thing to these states, is that many Americans, and pollies especially, know the demographics in those states quite well, almost down to county level and neighbourhood, and they also watch exactly *where* the voters came out to vote, and who they came out to vote for. Like we sometimes do with booth by booth breakdowns in electorates.
.
National polls and stats are almost useless in the USA. Its the local ones that count. Its only these states that matter, but there are also “gravy” states, and the Party will need to work out which states are likely to be “in play” for the campaign. It is impossible to campaign in all 50 states, both Repubs and Dems candidates will have to “write-off” states, or play the game with others, like making the opposition expend resources and money in defending Home Turf.
.
This election might bring Texas “into play” for the first time in decades. The Texas win for Hillary was very impressive if you look at the specific counties she took. Obama’s vote was actually down slightly amongst A-A voters, but Clinton has been mobilising Hispanics in much greater numbers. Obama took the two biggest cities, but with lower number turnout than expected. Clinton did a clean sweep of the rest including rural areas that generally never get out to vote at all, let alone in a primary. And Ohio was an impressive slam-dunk as Ohio is a must-win state.
.
So yeah, if I was Super-Delegate for a Day, I’d sit tight too, and see what the turn-out is in the remaining states, along with all the caucus state conventions which are still to run as well.
.
KR
it’s the ‘COMe ON’ Killer, but…& yes but not just Manuel
Jen, pause, it is the right thread…spot on…
812
Glen Says:
March 6th, 2008 at 11:37 pm
“Ah to have one of your own side say you arent up to the job is going to hurt and alot of Hillary supporters will jump ship and vote McCain if Obama wins the nomination…”
Mostly among racist voters. Now that might amount to as much as a few % but they’ll be racists all the same. Racism is far more prevalent among Republican voters so I’ll remain confident that the Democrats will win the Presidential contest later this year.
First line of trenches: Clinton can catch up with “delegate rich large states”. That’s been overrun. Obama won more in Hawaii with his 75% there than Clinton won in Texas with 51%.
Second line of trenches: Clinton will lead in the popular vote. THis will give an exuse for the SDs to back her. No She won’t. See Diogenes #771.
Third line of trenches: Clinton won all the swing states therefore she can beat McCain whereas Obama can’t.
Clinton won the Democratic primaries in the swing states, but what does this mean? These were PRIMARIES! Democrats in Florida and Ohio preferred her (narrowly) to Obama. These states will be decided in November by who wins the majority of voters not the majority of Democrats. True – most of these were open primaries and independents and Republicans could vote as well. But that’s not an argument because independents and Republicans voted for Obama in overwhleming numbers.
The only way, then, that the swing state argument can be said to have any relevance is if Obama is seen to be such a divisive and obnoxious candidate to Democrats that in November they will vote for McCain (or not vote) rather than vote for Obama and will that they will do so in sufficient numbers to cancel out the independents and Republicans who vote for Obama.
There is not data to support this. All the polls refute it. But that doesn’t stop anyone from repeating the “Cinton is more electable” mantra because faith is faith and data is irrelevant.
Oh…and I forgot to add, Obama is black.
Oh, and in case you’re wondering if I’m suggesting the Clinton campaign has had racist overtones then the answer is Yes.
* at 814
i meant Edwards not McCain
President McCain – nice ring to it
President Huckabee – not so nice ring to it
President Obama – not so nice ring to it (name wise not being racist here)
President Clinton – nice ring to it
hmmmm i hope McCain chooses his running mate soon, the sooner he starts campaigning the more the Democrats look unelectable. The Republicans will probably lose but with the Dems duking it out bare knuckled like this for another 3 months Macca may have a decent shot.
822
Glen Says:
President Obama – not so nice ring to it (name wise not being racist here)
Yeah, sure.
Diogenes# 768
‘I’m quite nauseated at the thought that one of the greatest writers ever allowed himself to receive the same award as that list of reprobates. I know he did run unsuccessfully for President of Peru but you’ve gotta have some standards. I keep waiting patiently year after year for Llosa to win the Nobel Prize…’
Dio, the list I cited was the Scholars and Fellows. Not the recipients.
That is as interesting. The departure into Llosa may have caused dismay, as KR suggests. For example:
• Australia’s John Howard Receives 2008 Irving Kristol Award
• Bernard Lewis to Receive AEI’s Irving Kristol Award for 2007
• David Hackett Fischer to Receive 2006 Irving Kristol Award
• Mario Vargas Llosa to Receive 2005 Irving Kristol Award
• Charles Krauthammer to Receive 2004 Irving Kristol Award
• Meltzer to Receive the First Irving Kristol Award
• Norman Podhoretz to Receive 2002 Boyer Award
• Justice Clarence Thomas to Receive 2001 Boyer Award
I mention again, per the excerpt at 765, the departed Tom Switzwer, as recently lamented by Janet Albrechtsen.
PS Rodent does ShamIam too…even…
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/howard-ignored-polling/2008/03/06/1204779971065.html
Way to go…leadership, experience & all that…
Mr Bowe, Rinso joke time…please
Glen, nice ring to it -nong, nong, nong.
Clinton’s Texas ads, the non-scarey ones:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jyaxXsXrq4A&feature=user
Updates on the superdelegate race …
Obama has (a few moments ago) broken the 200 superdelegate mark. Clinton maintains a lead of 41 superdelegates at 241. There are now 280 unaligned superdelegates and Clinton remains some behind in the overall race by about 92 delegates. If the 50 unaligned Obama delegates kick-in we will be looking at 230 unaligned and an Obama advantage of 142.
And if 142 rusted on (but not publicly aligned) Clinton superdelegates walked over to the Clinton Camp, that would leave the balance of power with 88 superdelegates dealing with internal questions of priority relative to (a) the people, (b) the party, (c) the Clinton machine, or (d) Change we can believe in.
Oh Dear, Nasty place that US, now lookee here…
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/03/07/2182686.htm
The buggeyed one circles the 7% carcasse…lick lick chomp
Never travel, never learn, much safer…(Janette’s revenge?)
Glen @ 822, next thing you will be saying that some of your best friends are black, puhhhlease!
I used to have some residual affections for the Clintons, but they lost me with their dirty racist campaign tactics. Like our rodent, they are playing the race card, or what used to be called ‘Nixon’s Piano’, and I hope that she reaps the whirlwind.
The man we love to hate, dear old Rupert, is in the news again, what a lovely man he really is:
“RUPERT MURDOCH short-changed his now 99-year-old mother, Elisabeth, to the tune of $273 million, and in his attempts to make it up to her left her with a tax bill that has grown to as much as $70 million.
Lawyers for Dame Elisabeth yesterday appeared in the Federal Court to appeal against the assessment ordering her to pay tax on an $85 million payout from the Murdoch family company, Cruden Investments, in November 1994.”
Kiddies, this is how you get on in this world, cheat your dear old mom. The yanks are welcome to this bottom feeder!
“I think that I have a lifetime of experience that I will bring to the White House. I know Senator McCain has a lifetime of experience to the White House. And Senator Obama has a speech he gave in 2002.”
Hmmm.
Clinton’s and McCain’s “lifetime of experience” has, so far, resulted in 3,000+ dead GIs, 1,000,000+ dead Iraqis, 4,000,000 million displaced Iraqis, oil @ US$150-00/barrel and US$3,000,000,000,000+ debt.
Obama’s supposed “inexperience,” as shown by the 2002 speech, would have resulted in not a single drop of blood spent, or a single taxpayers’ cent wasted.
Bugger!
single drop of blood
spentspiltSome time back we started with a picture of Clinton morphing into the Alien if she couldn’t win by fair means, well, she’s sure starting to salivate now; over Florida and Michigan.
She’s saying to everyone who’ll listen that she still maintains the delegates should be seated at the convention, despite the fact she’d originally agreed the contests were null and void in those states, as determined by the DNC.
We were right folks, she’s got the fangs bared, the saliva is dripping, and it ain’t a pretty sight.
But yesterday Howard Dean released this:
The rules, which were agreed to by the full DNC including representatives from Florida and Michigan over 18 months ago, allow for two options. First, either state can choose to resubmit a plan and run a party process to select delegates to the convention; second, they can wait until this summer and appeal to the Convention Credentials Committee, which determines and resolves any outstanding questions about the seating of delegates. We look forward to receiving their proposals should they decide to submit new delegate selection plans and will review those plans at that time. The Democratic Nominee will be determined in accordance with party rules, and out of respect for the presidential campaigns and the states that did not violate party rules, we are not going to change the rules in the middle of the game.
…that last bit is pretty emphatic, so basically, the stoush is on, Alien Mother on one side and the DNC on the other.
I wouldn’t like to be standing in the middle of that!
morning bludgers -
last night I asked myself the question why do I want Obama over Clinton, being a girl and all, and quite partial to the idea of a woman POTUS.
I also accept the reality that Hillary does have more experience than Obama, and yet neither of these factors cause me to change my deep hope that Obama wins. and the answer is quite simple -
Clinton got to where she is because she is married to Bill . Sne has the brand factor and the machinery to back her. Obama got to where he is simply on merit and ability.
Of the 2 I much prefer the latter.
Add in to the mix my horror at what has happened in Iraq, (which must be even more of a factor in the US as the body bags keep arriving), and her support for this immoral act, and he gets even more points.
And clearly she is out of line implying that McCain would be better for the US than Obama – another black cross.
Simple really.
The argument that Hilliary wins the General Election “important” States in the primaries doesn’t wash with me. It would seem that Obama brings more states into play.
Survey USA, http://www.surveyusa.com/, has some interesting maps based on polling on who would win what (600 voters in each state polled)
Obama vs McCain 280 / 258 (EC votes)
Hillary vs McCain 276 /262
Obama wins more states, Clinton wins bigger states, net result is almost the same.
Jen,
There are many people out there who think that Bill got to where he was because of Hillary!
Jen, if you weren’t sold, another few reasons laid out here:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arianna-huffington/democratic-scorecard-the_b_90258.html
‘After her New Hampshire comeback, Clinton famously declared: “I found my own voice.”
For this latest comeback, she found Karl Rove’s voice…
So we got the 3 a.m. phone call, making no real argument about preparedness to lead, only the shadowy insinuation that bad things will happen to your kids if you vote for Obama. Trailers for slasher movies have less of a creep-you-out factor.
We got Hillary’s ready-to-lead scorecard: “I think that I have a lifetime of experience that I will bring to the White House. I know Senator McCain has a lifetime of experience to the White House. And Senator Obama has a speech he gave in 2002.” This scorched earth pronouncement led Air America’s Rachel Maddow to tell Keith Olbermann, “That’s what you say when you want to be John McCain’s vice-presidential choice. That’s not what you say when you’re trying to become the Democratic nominee for president.” Olbermann’s take: “Unbelievable.”
And we got that jaw-dropping moment on 60 Minutes where Clinton generously announced that she takes Obama at his word that he’s not a Muslim and rejected rumors that he is with the so-big-you-could-fit-a-madrass-in-it caveat, “As far as I know.” What’s next, “Obama is a human being… as far I know”?’
4 more SDs signed on for Obama in the last day. 241-202. The gap is below 40 for the first time.
841
Pancho
Do you get the feeling that the Clinton “Alien” is turning off the SD’s a bit? It’s now clear what she intends: tear down Obama and the DNC if she can’t get her way, and stuff the consequences.
No doubt quite a few are seriously wondering just where this lead them in November, but on present form, Hillary Clinton is not going to stop unless enough SD’s pull out her plug.
Glen at 808, i once again have to agree with you. the only one Hillary is helping is McCain
thanks pancho -
she’s showing her true colours. This is all about Hillary, not the party or the country. Hopefully the SD’s get that too. As i said earlier, I think she is the US equivalent of Mark Latham – populist tactics that hands the victory to the opposition. And the world can’t afford another Republican gov’t in the uS – look what happened here in the last 3 years .
I think John Howard is a more appropriate analogy. Just because she ignores the maths, will apply negative tactics to win, and is willing to destroy her own party to achieve her ends.
If you were an unaligned SD, how would you justify to yourself and your party going against the candidate who will win the delegate count, the popular vote and is ahead in the poll vs Macca? Even if you did that because of loyalty to Clinton, wouldn’t you have supported her early already? Why would a SD wait until the last moment to support the less popular candidate and ensure a bloodbath at the convention?
Logically, I would expect the SD count to even up now but it’s not all logic unfortunately.
And for the record, I’m agreeing with Glen that having Billary deriding Obama in favour of Macca has gotta hurt Obama badly.
asanque -
true, but I’m looking at it from a labor/democrat analogy. Maybe she’s a hybrid.
Diogs -
don’t you think it will hurt herself badly?
there would be a lot of democrat supporters who would be incensed by that comment.
One question – Is there anyone at the top of the Dems monitoring, sanctioning and vetoing the ads and the comments at all? Surely there must be limits placed on the length of the claws on the animals in the pit. There are in cock fighting.
Otherwise it’s just a matter of the DNC and/or key characters like Dean, Gore et al. just waiting until their patience runs out with one or the other candidate. In the meantime a lot of damage is done to the party’s main cause.
Dave@839-
i quite like Bill, and reckon he did a sensational job compared to George the Villiage idiot. I like the Beatles too, but tend to buy new music these days.
I’ve gotta say that Howard-Hillary comparison- dont care about destroying own party for own ends- does resonate
jen- It didn’t hurt her on Super Tuesday did it? I suspect the SDs will not be as charitable as the voting public though.
**Unscientific observation alert**
I’ve noticed an interesting geopolitical feature of the US map broken into Clinton vs Obama wins. It’s like a purple (Obama) football jumper with a pink (Clinton) diagonal sash running NE to SW. The further the state is from the “Clinton sash”, the more heavily it supports Obama. Using this “theory” SD, MT and WY should all be strong Obama wins in the North and MS and NC should be Obama in the South. PA, WV and KY would all be Clinton wins.
The “theory” suggests Obama would win Michigan easily which is probably true, but it has a little problem in that it predicts a big Obama win in Florida. Oh well, it was nice while it lasted.
846 -
bTW Diogs: agreeing with Glen may be a breach of protocol.
diogs -
she was meant to win Super Tuesday.
Let’s see how McCain spins this as a success, and how Clinton justifies her vote for it:
“Iraqi police say at least 54 people died and 130 others were wounded when two bombs exploded in quick succession in a shopping area in central Baghdad overnight”
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/03/07/2182730.htm
Every time something like this happens, the more Obama is going to smell like a rose.
Clinton can dish it out, but can’t take it, apparently:
“Clinton aide likens Obama to Lewinsky prosecutor
An aide to Hillary Clinton has likened Democratic presidential rival Barack Obama to independent prosecutor Ken Starr, comparing criticism of her to the 1998 probe that led to former president Bill Clinton’s impeachment.”
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/03/07/2182863.htm?section=justin
Jen@850
Purely tongue in cheek. There was a joke going around when Bill was POTUS along the lines of:
Bill: Just think Hillary, if you hadn’t married me, you wouldn’t have gotten to be the First Lady;
Hillary: No Bill, If you hadn’t married me, you wouldn’t have been president.
(I think I have missed something here because it doesn’t quite sound as funny written out like that … anyway, that was the gist of it)
Your post just reminded me of the Joke is all. I liked Bill as well.
My personal view is that either would Hillary or Obama would be OK Presidents however I suspect that Hillary would be less prone to Repub attacks in the long run given that they have pretty much thrown everything at her that they could – Obama is still pretty much an unknown on the dirt front and this could destabilise and Presidency. I also suspect that a fair chunk of the Blue Collar workers are more racist than they let on, at least in polling, and that they may be reluctant to vote for a Black Pres. Joe Bageant’s “Deer Hunting With Jesus’ definitely suggests as much. This is a shame because, as I said, I think Obama would be fine as a Pres, but it is for this reason alone that I think that the Dems would be better placed going with Hil for this one. Obama is young, he can have his shot in the future – the closeness of this campaign wont hurt his future chances of candidacy if Hil gets the nod this time around.
Claude @ 839 I saw that map too, though I dont agree with all the elements of Kos’s analysis.
.
There are a few rather implausible results, no way McCain wins New Jersey against either Clinton or Obama for example, & North Dakota makes me *grin*, & I would definitely quibble the west coast — but it does demonstrate some basic points. First, while Obama clearly expands the electoral playing field, he is also the bigger risk in the key Must-Win-At-All-Costs battleground states. There is also more risk with bringing more states into play, partly because of extra costs and resources of ground campaigns, – ie you have to *choose* your battles, and not knowing how the Repugs might choose where to make their play. McCain is in Florida today for first rounds of fund-raising.
.
Secondly the projections this far out, have wider margins of error and in some states are skewed from too small sample sizes. The SUSA map should grow as time goes on and they load up new data sets.
.
It also illustrates how stubbornly *local* Americans can be.
.
Just a visual impression, maybe we should hope for a joint ticket? Stranger things have happened, and not the first time, an antagonistic Pres & VP have been forced to work together for their mutual self-interest. Their constituent bases are quite different demographics though, Obama can’t unite them, not yet anyway.
.
The core Democrat base who have been voting Democrat through thick and thin, since the Year Dot, just dont like him much – and they dont trust his campaign – they think its all about Obama, Obama, Obama – me, me, me.. he doesn’t even promote the standard core Democratic Party policy principles, which Hillary does – she stands for the Party, he stands for himself.
.
and they wont get out to vote in the large numbers needed, and if he takes the candidacy now and they see it as “unfair” (rightly or wrongly) – then either way, you are going to lose a chunk of Dem voters. Whichever candidate wins, it has to be “seen” as absolutely fair by the losing side. As one said on a blog, “I wouldn’t mind so much, except they just want to rub my nose in it”. People who are feeling even just mildly disappointed, are not going to be enthusiastic on polling day, especially if they felt (rightly or wrongly) that it was unfair.
.
I cant see it happening – but a joint ticket is the only way methinx.
.
Personally, I have little time for Obama, like the assembly line workers of Ohio, he is just warm & fuzzy speeches, he’s lied about his anti-war record, his work record is all but empty, he’s played his own Rovian tit-for-tats, I dont like the Neo-Con Economists he hangs with, and his health plan is blatant corporate welfare, and he’s had a complete “free pass” from the MSM (so far), and I dont like the lunatic fringe element of thugs who seem attracted to him.
.
but if he wins the nomination fairly, then so be it. But if all the Clinton supporters then get trashed in the media, put-down, smiked at like Costello, treated like sh*t, dictated to etc — then he’s not going to win the GE. He needs more than their reluctant votes, he needs them motivated and keen and enthusiastic to get out and want to vote in large numbers. They will not just fall into line because they are told to.
.
Rain
As a fellow health person, there’s an excellent articlewritten by Jessie Jackson’s senior health advisor at counterpunch on why health care reform won’t work under either Democrat. It seems fairly balanced and doesn’t favour either Obama or Clinton. It’s very pessimistic though.
http://www.counterpunch.org/
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23334523-12377,00.html
“THE Democrats are groping for ways to avert all-out conflict at their presidential convention in August, with the chances rising that renegade states will be allowed to hold their primaries from scratch”
I must be misunderstanding Obama’s slogan.
I always thought it was “Yes, we can” rather then “Yes, I can”.
why the hell did florida and michigan move their primaries in the first place? should they not have gotten party approval for this??
KR @ 842 – The way that the SDs have been falling since Clinton signed up about 170 before this contest even got underway, and what has happened since, indicates that she has collected all of her low hanging fruit.
The momentum even with the SDs is obvious. Clinton is not asking them to vote for her now, just to ‘keep their powder dry’ in the hope that something will show up.
In other news, it looks like Camp Clinton has pushed too hard and Obama is flinging back: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/03/06/obama-camp-presents-clint_n_90297.html
‘Advisers to Senator Barack Obama sought to change the context of the campaign’s foreign policy debate by casting Sen. Hillary Clinton as John McCain-lite. ‘
Ah finally some comprehensive 50 state match ups from teh good folk at :
http://www.surveyusa.com/
Very interesting. Both Obama and Hillary appear to both loose and win different states from this data. In this polls Hillary looses Michigan which may be good news for Obama. It is interesting to see Florida back in play however. I personally had written it off (still do). In my opinion it shows Obama would be a stronger candidate despite the closeness of the result. This is because of Florida. It appears very fluid. McCain v Obama would force McCain to spend valuable time and resources in places like Nebraska, Colorado and North Dakota? (hmm didn’t see that one coming). Whereas in a Clinton Scenario McCain would give up Arkansas for dead. That neither is winning Missouri should be ringing alarm bells.
Rain -
“The core Democrat base who have been voting Democrat through thick and thin, since the Year Dot, just dont like him much – and they dont trust his campaign – they think its all about Obama, Obama, Obama – me, me, me.. he doesn’t even promote the standard core Democratic Party policy principles, which Hillary does – she stands for the Party, he stands for himself.”
My impression is the exact opposite, rading various articles etc. Clearly you have more info than I do, but is your bias showing??
Andrew, the party did not approve any moves and both accepted this. Then moved their votes anyway after being told they would be void. They claimed to want to play a larger part in the nominating process, and also claim some of the press and publicity that goes to Iowa and New Hampshire.
reading
Diogenes @ 859
Diogenes – Excellent article, even though depressing.
He outlines the Clintons failed on health care when Bill was President and Hillary was supposedly fixing healthcare in 1993 (compelling view from a a chap who was with Hillary on the White House Health Care Reform Task Force in 1993)
“An alternative approach could have been to establish a publicly funded health care program (which was favored by the majority of the population) that would cover everyone, providing medical care as an entitlement for all citizens and residents. This could have been achieved, such as by expanding the federal Medicare program to cover everyone. To do so, however, would have required neutralizing the enormous power of the insurance companies with a massive mobilization of the population against them and in favor of a comprehensive and universal health care program. …”
“At the root of this disenchantment with the Clinton administration was its unwillingness to confront the insurance companies and Wall Street.”
I see Obama too has softened his position on what is needed in health – no doubt in case it is too hard in office. But still he is the only candidate who might stand up to the insurance lobby if he makes the White House. Neither of the others would bother. Hillary has already failed at it – sorry ,I mean she’s ‘had experience’.
well Pancho at 866 they are just plain stupid and dont deserve to have their votes count or have a recount
Rain – ‘they think its all about Obama, Obama, Obama – me, me, me.. he doesn’t even promote the standard core Democratic Party policy principles, which Hillary does – she stands for the Party, he stands for himself.”’
What absolute garbage. Both candidates are obviously egomaniacal and driven, but both have very similar platforms. Obama is leading in votes and delegates, and has a massive grassroots campaign and a huge lead in donations. Gore, Dean, Kerry and Kennedy are in support of Obama to varying extents. SDs are now virtually split, and since late last year, been moving to Obama at about 4 times the rate they have to Clinton. That argument just doesn’t stand up.
Rain -
out of curiosity, what is your response to hillary’s claim that McCain would be a better choice than Obama? Surely even her supporters find that a tad cynical -And a crap approach to getting rid of the GOP?
I’m finding the Democrat primaries very interesting for it seems that Obama is stronger in Republican states while Clinton is stronger in Democrat states.
I agree they are both very good candidates but I feel Clinton has more going for her, she was able to not only get re-elected but she won many rural conservate up-state New York counties.
At this stage I would tip McCain to beat Obama for example New Mexico is normally a swing state it’s next door to Arizona and has a large hispanic population which appears not overly keen on Obama.
While Obama may be able to win a southern state or two by encouraging many black voters to turn out, but if Bill Clinton, a Southern state Govenor struggled in the south then I can’t see Obama improving on that.
872 – In regards to New Mexico – Obama and Clinton practically split that state 50/50.
And New York will never go to the Republicans.
Florida and Michigan are back in play in Democratic race.
http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/03/06/america/campaign.php
Neither of these states can be ignored as they are far too important. Regardless of what happened before, they need to be sorted out. It also seems the on going battle has helped increase Hillary and Baracks lead over McCain.
Thanks Dio, I had seen similar in various places. They certainly can’t jump in one hit to UHC (or even any cost reduction) like the Michael Moore and Kucinich dreamers, but they can move a “baby-step” in a direction which can ease the situation, with mandating the industry. Edwards/Clinton & co plans included mandatory regulatory controls on the HMOs (admittedly minor ones), Obama’s uses words like “encourage” industry to play nice, and “voluntary compliance” with standards etc. The Edwards/Clinton concept is far more difficult given the interests involved, but with a blue congress behind them, they may just have a shot at a reasonable “baby-step”. At the least, it might slow down its rise to multinational status.
Rain- I get the impression it was Bill who dropped the ball on the health care reforms under pressure from Wall Street rather than Hillary. He may have dropped her like the proverbial stone due to political pragmatism, which would be an awfully hard thing to do to your wife.
Rain-
871?
Jen @ 872 Political rhetoric, baiting & working in an opening for her strengths – like when Obama tried to imply that Hillary and her “old washington politics” was responsible for Benazir Bhutto’s death back in December. He was baiting her then. Americans are not Australians, they see this as a poker game, basketball, chess game etc – and this is like, say, opening Pawn to Q4.
Your move..and he goes… She doesn’t play fair *sniff*… Mom? Mr Dean?
I’m telling the media on you!
.
And a question – *who* played the “race card” as a baiting?
http://www.talkleft.com/story/2008/2/27/121641/332
.
I saw the interview with the guy above, as in don’t blink or you’ll miss it, on CNN on Foxtel.
.
Re Florida/Michigan and the possibly changed momentum:
“Aides to Clinton, brimming with confidence, have said the two states were open to a revote under certain conditions. Obama’s advisers were a bit more wary, sensing that the recent change in the electoral and psychological dynamic could work against him, prominent Democrats said.”
http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/03/06/america/campaign.php
Rain – I agree that it an unfair charge to level the race issue at Hillary. But the McCain is better than Obama one absolutley confirmed my feelings about her: she would rather see the GOP win than for her to lose the nomination.
That disgusts me.
How about a response to this one, Rain?
‘STEVE KROFT: You don’t believe that Senator Obama’s a Muslim?
HILLARY CLINTON: Of course not. I mean that’s, you know, that, there is no basis for that. You know, I take him on the basis of what he says, and, you know, there isn’t any reason to doubt that.
KROFT: You said you take Sen. Obama at his word that he’s not a Muslim…
CLINTON: Right, right..
KROFT: …you don’t believe that he’s a Muslim.
CLINTON: No! No! Why would I? There’s nothing to base that on. As far as I know.’
879 – ['She doesn’t play fair *sniff']
Actually Rain, I believe only one candidate has played the ‘crying’ card so far.
I was thinking about the Australia:america Rudd:Obama analogy a bit last night with the emphasis on experience vs change, and it occurred to me that Obama has the equivalent of Rudd having to beat Howard, then beat Howard again with full knowledge of how the last Rudd Howard campaign went. This is because McCain will see precisely what works and what doesn’t. Rudd Only had to beat Howard once. Who here thinks he could do it twice consecutively over 2 separate years?
Also, Obama complains because Hillary is breaking set rules.
Hillary complains when she isn’t winning.
Big difference.
884- I think Rudd would beat Howard consistently every month, every year for the next decade.
Howard got off lightly last election and still lost his own seat.
878 Dio – probably more complicated than that, lots of players in that playground. My hub’s view was that Bill’s first term, Bill was very much heart-in-the-right-place but idealistic and somewhat niave (some of his 92 campaign rhetoric has been plagiarised by Barack), and made mistakes through inexperience, with just how powerful some of those players on Wall street actually are, and how the Repug machine is real. But learned real fast, along with Hillary I guess – made mistakes, but kept learning from them.
.
By his second term, the Repugs got control of Congress, and blocked him every which way, and engineered the whole Lewinsky drama and dragged it on for months and into impeachment etc. With health care, he could make it an executive order to Hillary, thinking that might be a way to get it started by working outside of the block in Congress. It failed again, going up against multinationals never quite worked for anybody, even POTUS’s and their wives … like how Gore went off to the first Kyoto quite positive, but the official US position changed very quickly within days, after Exxon, Mobil etc.
.
Thats my other half’s view anyway,FWIW
.
Its one of the reasons I like them, they have been through more political wringers, both individually and together, but they pick themselves back up, and try again, a different tactic perhaps this time – and they keep at it. A “fighter” like the image forming says.. down badly at half-time, but came back with a cool slam-dunk – that earned her the right to stay in the game and play on, in my view.
.
Do you know Hillary was a campaigner for McGovern in 68? And worked as a lawyer with the black panthers for chrissakes, long before she met Bill. She has had a long career, and she can back up her experience, in her own right.
.
Hi Rain – What’s the weather like over there in Rochester?
“With health care, he could make it an executive order to Hillary, thinking that might be a way to get it started by working outside of the block in Congress. It failed again, going up against multinationals never quite worked for anybody, even POTUS’s and their wives ”
Yes, it did fail, so time for someone to have a crack who is more likely to go up against the multi-nationals and then go right over the top of them if necessary.
I must say this line that because she has been around forever Hillary would be the most effective Pres is ringing rather hollow when compared to her establishment policies and record of failure. You sure are a conservative Rain. Don’t you want change?
Rain @887
‘Do you know Hillary was a campaigner for McGovern in 68? And worked as a lawyer with the black panthers for chrissakes, long before she met Bill. She has had a long career, and she can back up her experience, in her own right.’
Then I would expect a lot better of her than what she is demonstrating.
And the bush/clinton/ bush/clinton tag team is just too cosy IMHO. no circuit breakers, and both beholden to the big business players/financiers, and therefore who-knows-what ties to maintaining the debacle in Iraq and the middle east.
Clean sweep time.
asanque-
the by-elections will tell. I reckon Howard did way better at the last election than he would now.
Rain, you obviously need to tell your other half the story of Rickey Ray Rector if he has such a doe-eyed view of Bill Clinton.
BTW Rain –
‘Other half “? as in ,you are only half a person because you are married??
not sure whether you are representative of US attitudes, but hardly a progressive view of women. And another reason why i feel uneasy about Hillary – that is conservatism at it’s worst, that women are somehow only complete with a man in tow, and she cannot claim to have succeeded in her own right, because she bloody well hasn’t.
And Ralph Nader and Matt Gonzalez as “running mate”, weighing in to the race at this time I thought was interesting too, a day or two after the below was printed, they announced they would be entering the Presidential race for the Greens.
http://quartz.he.net/~beyondch/news/index.php?itemid=5413
Matt Gonzalez is a well-known Green Party activist I think in Californian? state politics.
Be an interesting GE, dont you think with Nader & Gonzalez in?
I recommend this piece:
http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=aa0cd21b-0ff2-4329-88a1-69c6c268b304
This piece exposes the dirty reality of the Obama campaign – his own negative ads against Clinton, while pretending that his hands are clean. His racialising of the campaign, and his smear of Clinton, accusing her of doing it instead. Overall, his free ride from the media. And finally, his breathtaking hypocrisy.
This is a “clean campaign”? Yeah, right.
Jen (892)
For someone who purports to be a progressive thinker, it seems little, if any, thought was put into Post 892.
sorry David?
As I have said, if Hillary had achieved her success independantly of Bill I would have great admiration for her. As it is, she is clearly a beneficiary of her husband’s status, contacts and experience. This is itself is not to condemn her, but nor does it give her the Woman Succeeds in a glass-ceiling world quodos.
898 Jen – personal *individual* thing, my own feelings/choice of expression, nobody else’s.
He’s working in London at the moment.
.
BTW – I’m Australian, but I used to travel with work a lot, on one trip – I brought a yank back home, he wanted a 6-week holiday, but he ended up staying
.
BTW – you may be right about ‘not a lot of thought’, but when women talk about themselves as half a person because they have a male partner I react. We should have come a bit further than this in 2008.
894 – Matthew Cole
I think a blogger best summed it up as “argument by assertion”.
Many points are stated as fact which are not backed up in any way or format.
I could perform a detailed critique, yet many posters have already done so in the comments.
http://www.tnr.com/talkback.html?id=aa0cd21b-0ff2-4329-88a1-69c6c268b304
I can’t see how “Hillary can’t do it because her husband already has” is a feminist argument.
If she was up there saying ‘vote for me because I’m married to Bill’ yeah, OK. But (from what I’ve seen, and my level of commentary on these threads has been limited because my information is) she’s running on her own record. Being married to the man who used to be President is one part of that, sure, but it’s a valid part of her own life experience too.
I’m not sure how someone in Hillary’s position is supposed to deal with that. Not run because her husband was President? Even if she believes that she has a lot to offer in her own right? Isn’t that being just as subordinate as if she stayed at home baking cookies because ‘politics is Bill’s thing’?
Run, but pretend that Bill never happened? Yeah, sure.
The whole argument also ignores the fact that Hillary was not just any first lady, she actively used the office in a way that noone (with the possible exception of Eleanor Roosevelt) has before or since.
I thought the whole equality argument was based around not judging people’s abilities or worth by whom they happened to be married to.
It’s also not Hillary’s fault that it’s gone Bush Clinton Bush and therefore if she’s elected goes Clinton again. That’s a coincidence of timing, surely. Again, it doesn’t seem a valid argument for her not to run.
Mathew Cole, Sean Wilentz writes:
‘A review of what actually happened shows that the charges that the Clintons played the “race card” were not simply false; they were deliberately manufactured by the Obama camp and trumpeted by a credulous and/or compliant press corps in order to strip away her once formidable majority among black voters and to outrage affluent, college-educated white liberals as well as college students. The Clinton campaign, in fact, has not racialized the campaign, and never had any reason to do so. Rather the Obama campaign and its supporters, well-prepared to play the “race-baiter card” before the primaries began, launched it with a vengeance when Obama ran into dire straits after his losses in New Hampshire and Nevada–and thereby created a campaign myth that has turned into an incontrovertible truth among political pundits, reporters, and various Obama supporters.’
It does not ‘expose or ‘prove’ anything. Of course there is going to be tactical manuevering, and Clinton and Obama are going to annoy and offend each other. But Clinton’s race tactics for instance have included the ‘fairytale’ comments, the Jesse Jackson comments, the LBJ comments, and lately the muslim comments. All very subtle dog-whistle stuff, but these are the things that are turning Democrats off her, not some sinister baiting of her camp into racism.
That is SO true
I couldnt believe the pathetic Obama camp and the media with the alleged racial stuff, it was such a load of crap, and everyone knows it
In case the above is not clear, my point is that Wilentz’ article does not ‘prove’ anything, and stands in contrast to what we know has happened, and why black voters and others, have been upset by Clinton’s tactics and will not vote for her.
zoom -
everything you say is correct except that Hillary is also running on the First Woman as POTUS card which is where I think it is relevant that she was helped to get to where she is because she was married to Bill. if she ackowledged that this gives her a major edge over other prospective women candidates then I would not have any issue with it at all.
Mind you, I also accept that this could be disadvantage to her in some quarters.
As for the Bush/Clinton leapfrog: i do think it is relevant in terms of old allegiances and previous done deals. If Hillary was offering a new way as Rudd did here, i think she would be a better option, but in too many ways she has supported or aligned herself with the previous administation.
And all the while McCain goes abroad on 10 day trip looking Presidential…the Democrats sure know how to lose the unlosable election!
They sure are giving it a shot Glen.
I think we’re all (well, lots of us) agreed that the electorally better candidate is the one more likely to carry swing states. Thanking Mathew Cole for the detailed analysis (at #750).
But taking the figures at face value, I draw a different conclusion from them. Of course, not all swing states are equal– the electoral college votes ultimately tell the story. Leaving aside HRC’s home state (which, of course, wouldn’t be a swing state if she was the nominee), she had prior to a couple of days ago won live primaries in only Nevada (C), New Mexico and New Hampshire of the list given. All tiny states, and all by small margins.
Whereas Obama had won Virginia, Iowa (C), Minnesota (C), Missouri, Wisconsin and Colorado (C). Granted that the C for caucus states are a worse guide than ballot voting, as to how things will go in November. But some of the wins were crushing (although Missouri’s effectively a dead heat), and some of the states reasonably sized.
This is why Ohio really was important. It was both the first sizeable swing state to go for HRC, and her biggest swing state victory.
And it’s also why Pennsylvania and Oregon will be even more important than just their delegates. Unfortunately, further muddying the waters, they’re likely to be split one each. It appears that the last published poll in Oregon is ancient history (25 Jan)– despite the 36:28 Clinton result way back then when Edwards was still in the race, Obama has to be favourite to win it.
And it’s why the momentum for Florida and Michigan to do a re-run will continue to grow. Just ’seating the delegates’ would be analogous to saying ‘we’ve cancelled the final quarter of the grand final, and just substituted the scores you got when you last met in a practice match’. And even though he’s prevaricating now, Obama should take on the challenge. If he can’t poll in the 40s in Florida, and win (or dead heat in) Michigan, then– despite the fact that he will go into the convention with a delegate lead and almost certainly a popular vote lead– there will be real and genuine questions over his electability where it counts.
There may yet be a process of DNC heavyweights trying to bully a candidate into withdrawal. But there’s no fall-back position; no honourable compromise. You’re either in or out. With every passing day, it becomes more likely that the two of them have gone too far to be the other one’s VP. Obama couldn’t look HRC in the eye and believe that she would abide by any ‘Kirribilli agreement’ she made (nor that such a deal would look good for him electorally in 2012).
Obama’s in for the long haul, because he’s the strong odds-on favourite to win it; HRC is in until at least 6 May when, if she suffers punishing losses in Indiana and NoCal on top of a less-than-expected win in Penn, she might fall on her sword. Otherwise, here’s fun until August!
I lean more towards the ‘keep the Dem candidate in the public eye, toughen up the challenger’ school of thought, rather than the ‘party bent on losing, tearing itself apart’ school of thought. I mean, really, apart from stupid stuff like ‘he’s a Muslim in disguise’ and ‘his middle name’s Hussein’ which are only going to persuade hard-core Republicans anyway, what will McCain be able to throw at Obama, that HRC isn’t already going to throw in the next few months?
Jen
Women are entitled to the same opportunities as men; indeed, you may correct me if I am wrong, but I believe it is called ‘equality of opportunity’. Opportunity is an interesting phenomenon but I think it at least embraces being able to take advantage of any ‘lucky breaks’ that come one’s way and to use networking to further a career path. Many (although not all) men have furthered themselves by using lucky breaks and networking. Why (I ask rhetorically) should an ambitious woman like HRC be criticised because by offering herself as a POTUS candidate she is taking advantage of her association by marriage to Bill Clinton?
Isn’t it one of those treading on eggshells things? That any remark you make that is at all disparaging of Obama can be cast as racist? (which may explain the perception that the media is ‘going easy’ on him). As it has been pointed out, many of the attacks on Hillary, by posters on these threads, can be cast as sexist – even if that wasn’t the writers’ intention.
Isn’t Obama playing the same game, by allying himself publicly with black celebs such as Oprah? Isn’t that saying to people “I’m the black candidate”? Or is even suggesting that enough to brand me ‘racist’?
I do think that Obama would be eyed through a very different pair of glasses if his skin colour was his mother’s and not his father’s.
I’ve often pointed out that more women have been elected as Prime Minister or President in countries where women are generally restricted to more traditional roles (the Phillipines, Indonesia, Mali, Pakistan, India) than Western societies, and I believe it’s for much the same reasons – it is seen as impolite to attack women in such societies so they get an easier run.
In the same way, we have no hesitation in attacking women – sexist remarks are OK – but we are far more reticent when it comes to saying something which might be interpreted as racist.
David -
it isdnot that she shouldn’t take the breaks – it is that she shouldn’t imply that she did it without them ie- she could be the first POTUS without having had the extroadinary lift that being Bill’s wife has given her. In other words most other women wouldn’t stand a chance, so it’s got nothing to do with her gender, and I don’t like that she runs this aspect of her campaign as if she is championing women from an equal position. If she gets elected I hope it is on her merit.
zoom -
I don’t think sexism or racism is acceptable. I am certainly not being sexist (as in – i wouldn’t want Hillary to win Because she is a woman), but i am simply stating that she isn’t starting from the same boat as pretty much any other female candidate would be, and that should be acknowledges in the whole gender discussion that she generates.
Jen
“if she gets elected I hope it is on her merit” – that’s an argument which keeps women out of power.
Our society is still very much geared to nurturing men as leaders. Men of almost no merit at all are commonly given opportunities which women of merit have to fight for.
I know of women in our community who have (on paper) bag loads of merit but are constantly overlooked when it comes to positions of power.
So a journo friend of mine who worked for one of the major city newspapers was constantly overlooked when it came to promotions in favour of men with far less experience than she had. Why? Because all the discussions about which positions were available and who should be sounded out to fill them took place in the pub after work.
This sort of inbuilt social exclusion means that it’s very difficult for a woman to get there solely on her own merit.
Why haven’t we had a woman nominee for POTUS before? Why is the first one we have the wife of a former President? Why haven’t we got someone who has simply got there on personal merit?
Because the system doesn’t allow a woman to get the experience she needs to run for the position in her own right. It doesn’t let her develop the networks, give her the platforms to demonstrate merit or to exercise power.
Fine, we can sit around and wait for that to be fixed and for a candidate running purely on her own record to come along but we’ll be waiting another twenty years or so for that to happen.
well I’ve been flooded with more requests for “rose coloured glass’s” as more people have taken the trouble to use a calculator & realise Obama won the delegate race 4 weeks ago.
Nothing has changed since nor will the remaining 12 Primarys change the reality Obama won the delegate race.
As for the uncommitted SD’s , it would take an overwhelming % to switch to HRC to prevent Obama winning & this was always politically inconceivable.
What the SD’s have demonstrated is their won pitiful self interest rather than the Party’s interest in allowing the campaign to continue forcing HRC to FINALLY in desperation play the National Security card against Obama (this is McCain’s strongest card). Which will hurts Obama & will continue to be now used by HRC to hurt Obama, and when Obama finally faced McCain , one of McCain’s strongest political plus’s National Security has been used adversely on his opponent.
Apart from pitiful self interest , the uncommitted SD’s show appalling political strategy to allow this nightmare scenario to continue.But those rose coloured glass’s still mean Obama will overcome these hurdles
Zoom @ 900 – I wholeheartedly concur – it’s all about the qualities H Clinton would bring to the job, and quite simply, they are second to Obama’s.
No-one has been able to make the case as to how Hillary’s relevant experiences and stated policies make her the superior candidate to Obama on the issues that count. I’ve asked Rain this about 4 times without a response. All I see in response is – “Obama’s too inexperienced” or “Hillary has the know-how to get things done”, or “Obama’s as dirty as Clinton”, or something else along those lines.
The reason it’s never been successfully answered directly is that on the evidence Obama is the only choice if change is to be achieved . He will make a point of speaking with Muslim leaders, he doesn’t toady up to Israel to the extent Clinton has repeatedly. These two elements alone must be supported is we are to be safer., He has a policy intention to eschew the vested interests infesting Washington. In other words he is going to shake the tree. Hillary by contrast on arrival in Washington will just be shaking the hands of her old establishment friends, such as the Israel lobby, the Pentegon and heavy industry types.
To support Hillary is to support the status quo – in Iraq, in Israel/Palestine, and in health care. To support Obama is to support a new outlook on the world and itself from the US.
Fortunately enough Democrats have realised this to have Obama decisively in front on pledged delegates and the popular vote. Get with the program, Clinton conservatives!
An example from Bill, not Hillary, when asked about Obama’s win in SC:
“Jesse Jackson won South Carolina in ‘84 and ‘88. Jackson ran a good campaign. And Obama ran a good campaign here.”
Bill was not asked about Jackson, but chose to throw in an illusion to a decades old caucus (not primary) famous for being won by a notable black candidate.
There are many similar instances. One I didn’t list above was the sacking of 2 Clinton campaign organisers in Iowa for circulating an email claiming Obama is a muslim, and the ‘dressed’ photos. There has not been an admittance that any of this was wrong, or an apology from the top. These are gutter tactics, not fit for an in party nomination.
zoom -
my point exactly. No other woman could have done it, so she doesn’t represent us in that sense. Perhaps if she wins it will help undo some of that ingrained disadvantage that you refer to ( and which i have personally felt at time in my life). However given the state of the worlsd at teh moment i suspect a black POTUS is an even more powerful symbol of tolerance and change.
A male candidate has the right to use any advantages he can in order to win.
A female candidate should also have the same right.
Bill used Hillary as an electoral positive, painting her as an equal partner in his political life, using her skills when he was Governor of Arkansas to reform the educational system.
I have never heard anyone disparage Bill for this – indeed, it was seen as a positive (pre election to President) that he treated his wife as an equal partner.
I have never heard anyone suggest that Bill somehow let down the cause of men by doing this, or that it delegitimised his candidacy in anyway.
Given that all male candidates cheerfully exploit their wives and children as part of their electoral appeal, why can’t Hillary do the same?
Of all the women Prime Ministers/Presidents that I can think of off hand, the only one I can think of who got there ‘in her own right’, without trading on their personal connections, was Margaret Thatcher.
Zoom – [Of all the women Prime Ministers/Presidents that I can think of off hand, the only one I can think of who got there ‘in her own right’, without trading on their personal connections, was Margaret Thatcher.]
Zoom, what about my all-time favourite Mary Robinson, former President of Ireland? I don’t think she needed any peripheral assistance.
905 Glen: From the Herald Tribure.
“Though McCain has locked in the nomination, a new poll shows him trailing both Democrats in hypothetical matchups. The ABC/Washington Post survey predicted that Obama would beat the Arizona senator by a 12-point margin and Clinton would best him by 6 points.”
So does that mean if they run together on a joint ticket it will be an 18 point lead?
zoom, have you considered Helen Clark and Angela Merkel?
Chris B i have seen other credible polls conducted by the LA Times that have McCain ahead….
http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/view/mccain_has_six_point_lead_over_hillary_in_us/
OK, I did say the ones that came to mind! Possibly my brain was focussed on one argument. Apologies – I was wrong (to put in a Stephen Leacock reference that noone except my mother would get – ‘and may all writers of sea stories say the same’).
Still, on the ‘on the shirt tails of their husbands’ theme -
a friend of mine was married to a local councillor, who in the fullness of time became Mayor. As his spouse, she was involved in his work on council; she got to know the people he did, saw the kind of work he had to do, discussed council issues with him etc.
When he retired, she decided to run for council. Because of her experience as a council spouse, she knew what the job involved and knew she was capable of doing it.
In the fullness of time, she ran for Mayor. Because she had been a mayoral spouse, she knew what the job involved and knew she was capable of doing it.
She was the first female mayor in our shire (and did an excellent job).
Was her achievement less of a victory for women because her h