Reader Posts
« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
How the Clinton campaign is like Jim Carrey in "Dumb and Dumber"
I was going to write something serious here to address the nonsense that's coming out of the Clinton campaign these days - and which has spread to some of her supporters on the "series of tubes".
I was going to write again about the near impossible delegate math that Clinton faces now. I was going to debunk this "big state" mantra that her campaign keeps going on about. I was going to address the fact that Hillary was completely fine with FL and MI being stripped of delegates back when voters in Iowa and New Hampshire (and the DNC) asked about her position. I was going to address how the GOP and McCain will use Hillary's own words and speeches to defeat her if she is the nominee.
But it comes down to this. What are Hillary's chances of winning the nomination right now? This clip of the movie "Dumb and Dumber"about sums it all up.
For those that think yesterday was a big win for Hillary, the Obama campaign spelled it out today:
"the most likely outcome of yesterday's elections will be that Hillary Clinton gained 187 delegates, and we gained 183.
That's a net gain of 4 delegates out of more than 370 delegates available from all the states that voted.
For comparison, that's less than half our net gain of 9 delegates from the District of Columbia alone."
So you're saying there's a chance? Sure, one in a million.
Sorry for the snarkiness- I'm ready to focus on McSame.
Comments (15)
Super-delegates will now have to begin to weigh carefully the cost of allowing this contest to continue to the chances in the general election. The super-delegate gap is down to 35 and closing and Clinton has been polling evenly against, or even well below, John McCain nationally since before Super Tuesday. Obama has had McCain by something like 10 points for almost as long. Add to this that without a severe reversal of fortune, there is no realistic way for her to close the gap that exists in the delegates and the popular vote. And, despite the bloviating of Geraldine Ferraro, Howard Dean remains adamant about holding Michigan and Florida to party rules.
McCain is now in general mode. He has the blessing of the POTUS (for whatever that's worth at this point.) Unless something drastic occurs that wildly swings national opinion in her favor, they will be faced with three choices:
1) Give Obama the nod.
2) Give Clinton the nod despite Obama's lead in both the delegate count and the popular vote, risk fracturing the party with the appearance of impropriety and lose all of the swing support that Obama has brought to the table. (Remember: elections in this country are not won on the edges, they are won in the middle.)
3) Wait it out until the convention, lose valuable time and potentially end up in the exact same boat as they are now, forced to tip it one way or the other.
Now, it's a crazy world and crazy things have been known to happen, but which of these sounds more likely to you right now? The post-March 4th news will be very informative as to how soon this will happen. Watch for clues among the supers as people start to wake up from the Clinton victory party with a delegate hangover and the realization that they're still behind.. and that this is unlikely to change.
March 6, 2008 1:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, and I should add that I'll be patiently waiting for Billy Glad to show up and tell me that Option #2 is a foregone conclusion, but not offer any explanation as to why this is the case.
March 6, 2008 1:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
You are just trying to ruin all the fun.
March 6, 2008 1:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think that enough of the supers will stay out of it at least until PA. First because the public does care and its so close. Second because they're wondering if there's going to be any fallout from the Rezko trial. Even I hope there is none because it will tarnish the party.
Dean can spin all he wants as can Ferraro and others but none of them get to decide MI or FL, beyond a vote on the rules committee if they are on it or on the convention floor.
Before Texas and Ohio I gave Clinton a 10% chance at the nomination. Now I give her 40%. Neither will get enough pledged delegates so the supers will decide. The popular vote is close enough that Clinton might win it. The supers will generally go with what is perceived as "fair" by the general public. If it is confirmed that Hillary lost the delegate count in Texas but won the popular vote your average American will not see that as fair. She will push that story line and if she gets the popular vote the supers will go with her. Average voters will see that as fair.
If she's unable to get the popular vote she loses. Of course only if no one makes a major gaff. But like you say its a crazy world and some backroom deal could be made.
March 6, 2008 2:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
Just out of curiosity, why would you give her a 40% chance now but not before? The election results were right in line with pre-election polls. Are you sure your perception isn't coloring your reality?
Also, do you have some historical basis for saying that the supers will go with what is "fair" (a concept that is highly debatable at this point) or is that just a gut-check?
I guess what I'm saying is this: Nothing unexpected happened on Tuesday. So why do you think this is a big change?
March 6, 2008 3:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
The polls were all over the place before the election. Zogby even had Obama winning. I know Zogby has made some major blunders this cycle but I wasn't so confident Hillary would win. She won 51 47 in Texas. If I see a poll that says 51 47 with a 3 point margin of error I see a dead heat that could go either way.
My guess as to how the supers will fall is totally a gut check. If I were to go on history I'd say Hillary wins it even if she doesn't get the popular vote. 20 years ago an election this close would have gone to the convention floor and given Obama's slim resume and Clinton's connections almost surely she would have won. But times have changed. Especially after Gore won the popular vote and lost the delegate count and the disaster of Bush. My gut says people will no longer accept the convention choosing the nominee the way it used to. What ever comes out of the convention will have to look "fair" to your average voter.
March 6, 2008 10:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
Citing Zogby on this is pretty silly. He hasn't exactly been very accurate this cycle. SurveyUSA, for example, was right on.
I would agree that your assessment must be a gut-check, because it does not agree with history. In fact, the scenario you describe has no historical precedent whatsoever. The only time that a primary has gone to convention since the creation of the superdelegates was in 1984, when Walter Mondale had a narrow lead over Gary Hart. The supers tipped it for Mondale, the delegate leader.
Another precedent that doesn't bode well for Clinton is the Dean/Kerry race in 2004. As with Clinton, Dean enjoyed an early lead in superdelegates, but this was not enough for him to secure the nomination.
I agree that it will have to look fair, as Howard Dean has said, but this will not mean tipping it for Hillary when she is behind in both delegates and the popular vote.
March 6, 2008 8:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
You seem to think everything has changed so much with the implementation of the superdelegates scheme that all prior history is irrelevant. I disagree. Humphrey is not ancient history and he got the nomination not only before supers but before the McGovern reforms. The original plan was for the superdelegates to be the same party insiders who controlled the process before the McGovern reforms.
But as I said I don't think history is predictive in this case. Or predictive only in the sense that we've gone from no primaries a hundred years ago with party insiders making the decision to the voters having almost total control of who gets the nomination today. People have gotten used to democracy with a little d. Clinton will probably have to get the popular vote to get the superdelegate nod. Or cut a deal with obama giving him the vp slot.
March 6, 2008 11:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, you seem be pretty attached to your point of view, but there's no evidence for it.
March 7, 2008 12:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Lessee, the Dems can't win in November without the McCain Republicans Obama's brought to the table?
Snarkiness aside, Obama has done a good job of bringing blacks and youth to the polls. Hillary's done a good job of getting women out - now 60% of the Democratic voters. Which is the stronger advantage come November? Or can we work together?
March 6, 2008 2:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
As per usual, all you can see is the Manichean. The polls clearly show that Clinton/McCain would be a dead heat at best whereas Obama/McCain would easily go to Obama. Who are these 10%? They're the voters that Clinton hasn't been able to and likely won't be able to attract. Are these polls a scientific reality? No. Will the supers be looking at them to gauge their chances in the general? You'd better believe they will.
These polls don't illustrate your quaint little black-youth/women dichotomy. Any other questions?
March 6, 2008 3:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
If the rules of the election are unfair - electoral college, delegates, caucuses, etc - change them before the vote is held. If you don't, it may still be an unfair system but it's just sour grapes when both campaigns came in understanding the rules of the game.
Obama is going to win the most pledged delegates and the most votes and the most states. Do you think the superdelegates are going to overturn that? We are delaying the inevitable.
Everyone's already talking about Hillary's momentum - watch what happens to that after she loses two states in the next 6 days.
March 6, 2008 7:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
FlyOnTheWall has already shown that state-to-state momentum does not exist. Clinton's camp is high on their all-but-guaranteed victory in Ohio right now. Once everyone comes back down to earth we will be hearing a different story.
March 6, 2008 8:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, you seem to be pretty attached to this point of view, but there's no evidence for it. How is Humphrey relevant to today's system? Also, why do you and others think that Obama will just take the VP spot when he's winning the primary? I have to say, your view seems to be terribly biased in favor of unlikely outcomes that see Clinton pulling this out somehow.
March 7, 2008 12:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't think he'll take the vp slot while he's winning the primary. I've never said anything even remotely like that. I've already said he is more likely to win and Hillary needs to win the popular vote to get the supers to fall her way. I don't think my posts are that confusing or that you lack the intellect to understand them. Yet you consistently distort what I'm saying. It seems you mostly want to bang the drum for your guy rather than engage in rational discourse. You know, you don't have to be on crossfire to be a partisan hack.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aFQFB5YpDZE
March 8, 2008 1:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment