Reader Posts
« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
Only 'Big' States' Count?
It looks like the Clinton campaign has been pushing hard today the message that Clinton is really winning because she's won big states like New York and California and that this puts her in better standing to win the general election.
This leaves me with a couple of questions. First of all, this doesn't have the ring of truth for me. Aside from the fact that it ignores the delegate count, it's almost certain that both New York and California will go to the Democratic candidate in the general. That she was ahead in a Democratic primary, which splits the Democratic vote, is meaningless in a general election.
So, will this narrative hold up in the general election? Not likely. More to the point, isn't Ohio (or maybe Florida) the most important state in the general? Does this mean that she's hoping to pull out a win in Ohio so that she can morph today's narrative into one that sounds more like, "Now I've won New York, California and that all important swing state, Ohio." Even if the margin is small, I think I see her painting this as a major, major victory, something that Josh and others here have predicted as well. After all, she needs to counter the current narrative of Obama's winning streak.
What do you think?
Comments (2)
You're dead-on about the Ohio narrative. But this recent slew of polls showing her pulling back ahead might blunt some of the surprise tomorrow.
Also, big snowstorm's on the way for Ohio. Could be Providence lending a helping hand like the retreat from Brooklyn circa 1776. Gotta think that has to help Obama if traditional demo numbers hold.
March 3, 2008 9:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
You know, the more I ponder this issue, the less I think that any of Hillary's statements are actually designed to gain traction or be believed.
I don't think Hillary believes half the things she's saying; nor do I think she intends any of us to believe them. She's executing the unspoken 6th tenet of her Kitchen Sink attack: Own the dialog on the election. And that's exactly what she's done for the past week - owned almost ever single news story that has come out or been reported about the election.
First it was the "shame on you", then it was the whining, then it was the red phone ads, then it's the NAFTA, then it's the "Obama has to blow me away to be a serious candidate".. but at all times, the media (and all of us) have been babbling on and on about what Hillary has told us to babble on about.
I'm starting to feel used. Maybe you are too. I suspect it would take the MSM years to wise up to the tactic.
Unfortunately, it's working. Merely by owning the nation's political dialog for a week, Hillary has succeeded in the one and only thing she actually needed to succeed at: appearing to be a viable candidate.
Oh sure, the math doesn't work out, and we repeat the assertion that she's out of her mind, but still - we're talking about her. Not Obama.
There's no momentum if nobody is talking about it.
She played us for chumps and we all fell for it.
March 3, 2008 10:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment