Reader Posts
« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
The Myth of Pennsylvania vs. The Reality of Math
Despite her campaign's desperate spinning, there is no legitimate path to the nomination for Hillary Clinton. And by legitimate I mean convincing enough to get the average uncommitted superdelegate to alienate Obama supporters by disregarding the delegate count and crowning Hillary the nominee.
Think about it.
We already know that she won't catch Obama in pledged delegates. There is virtually no chance she will pass him in popular vote, either. That would take 20 point HRC blowouts in more states than she will likely even win.
Even if by some Huckabeean miracle she did catch Obama in the popular vote she would still have to convince 2/3 of the remaining superdelegates to back her. And, as Mark Kleiman nicely illustrates here how likely is that?
The fact is that there are only a handful of states remaining that can be considered Clinton territory (PA, WV, KY). Of those, only Pennsylvania, the largest and most favorable to HRC, carries a significant opportunity for an HRC delegate and popular vote pickup.
But here's what no cable news talking head basking in the sudden glow of an audience beyond their normal viewership of dittoheads, prison inmates and Daily Show writers will tell you and what Hillary backers don't want you to know: Pennsylvania won't change anything. It won't change anything because on May 6th Obama will almost certainly offset any losses in with a big win in NC, an equally delegate rich state which heavily favors him.
The bottom line is that Hillary's chances rest solely on creating the perception that there is a legitimate path to the nomination. The cornerstone (or keystone if you like cornball puns) to that myth is that a big win in Pennsylvania tilts the race in her favor.
Comments (43)
You've got it right. They (the pundits)are all smart enough to know the real deal, but creating the perception of a contested race drives viewers to CNN and MSNBC. It's not a partisan thing, either, McCain vs. Huckabee had the same dynamic for weeks.
The only question remaining in the race is whether Obama obtains enough extra delegates to spare so that he can magnanimously offer to seat FL and MI.
March 9, 2008 1:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
LOL - "magnanimously offer to seat FL and MI". It's disgraceful to even consider diregarding the views of millions of Democratic voters.
If Hillary wins the popular vote (and she's close to taking the lead already), she'll win the nomination. In 2000, Dubya won the election having gained more delegates, despite losing the popular vote - and look how that turned out. The superdelegates will make sure the winner of the popular vote will take the convention (as most Democrats agree they should).
March 10, 2008 6:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
If you don't like the rules, then either change them before things start or don't play the game.
March 10, 2008 12:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
First of all, this race is about delegates. That's why every state counts, regardless of whether the Dems can win the state. There is currently a gap of 603,687 in the popular vote. It's not impossible to close that gap, but I wouldn't say she's about to overtake him. If you include Florida, he more than 300,000 ahead. If you include Florida and Michigan, which is ridiculous, she has the lead.
March 10, 2008 12:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
If the math becomes the discussion of the day in the MSM instead of PA and big states, then Obama will win the Superdelegates before the convention.
I'd love to see Wolf Blitzer or the other talking heads spend just 20 minutes after his win in Mississippi going over the math and how difficult it would be for Hillary to win.
March 9, 2008 1:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
OK, but the Clinton campaign must know this, too, right? So why are they still in it? More importantly, why are they hitting the negative campaigning so hard?
I'm reluctantly coming to the conclusion that she WANTS the Democrats to lose in November. If she can't be the presidential nominee this year, she'll ensure a loss and plan to run in 2012. I don't see any other explanation.
Sure, she's been pushing this 'shared ticket' idea, but that just makes this scenario even more plausible. She knows she wouldn't get the top spot, and she doesn't WANT to be vice-president. But if she's the V-P nominee on a LOSING ticket this year, what better position for being the heir apparent in 2012? And she'll ensure that the Democrats really DO lose this year, you can bet on that.
I've never been a 'Hillary Hater.' I've always stood up for her, and I actually liked her better than Bill. But I can't take her Republican tactics, especially since they seem to have no purpose. Well, one purpose, perhaps. This is the only logical scenario I can see. And if the Democrats even nominate her for vice-president - if the super-delegates force her on Barack Obama, I should say - I'm going to be furious!
March 9, 2008 2:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
If all of the above happens, where would Hillary get financial backing for try #2? Remember, Ms Inevitable was "In it to win it." Why would anyone donate after what you described?
March 9, 2008 4:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
So now if Hillary criticizes "The Golden Tongued Orator" from Illinois, Ombama supporters are convinced that Hillary is trying to lose the election for the Democratic Party. If that is the concensus of the Whimps backing Obama, then the Democratic Party has truly deteriorated since Obama came on the scene.
When the California primary was run, Hillary gathered about 2 million more votes than McCain got. Are you Obama backing fools going to gamble with 2 million votes if you won't vote for Hillary if Obama does not win the Democratic nomination? The only states Obama is winning is the same states that GeoDubyahLozer carried against Al Gore. Why is that happening? Because in those small states there are far more registered Republicans you fools! If Obama faces McCain, McCain will win those states in an avalanche. California, Texas, Ohio, Florida, Michigan, Massachusettes, etc and all the northeastern states will back Hillary to the very end. Get on the Hillary bandwagon and forget your facination with the Obama campaign. Back a winner for once!
March 9, 2008 2:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Are you Obama backing fools going to gamble with 2 million votes if you won't vote for Hillary if Obama does not win the Democratic nomination?"
Your "logic" seems to say NONE of those 2 million voters would vote for Obama. Do you seriously think that would be true? Do you really think CA will turn red in a presidential election?
March 9, 2008 3:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Exactly! The one person who has breathed life into this campaign is Obama. If he is the nominee, there is no question that he will carry California. The Hillary spin on that is absurd and disengenuous.
March 9, 2008 4:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
GeoDubyahLozer,
You betcha.
Can't wait to show you again that Democrats should nominate Democrats instead Republicans for president. You can holler and whimper and gnash your teeth all you want then when your Republican goes down to defeat again.
If people claiming to be Democrats want a Republican, they might want to consider being Republicans.
The Clintons should be arrested for impersonating Democrats.
Best, Terry
March 9, 2008 7:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Another idiot has spoken. As you point out, Hillary does well in bid Democratic leaning states where Obama is highly likely to do well and win easily -- NY, CA, PA, NJ, for example -- and, with the exception of Florida, Hillary does much less worse than Obama against McCain in swing states like OH, MO, OR, WA, VA (yes, VA) because of Obama's strength with independents and because she has this effect of unifying republicans to vote GOP, which McCain can't do and Obama won't do. In fact, Hillary's wins in Ohio and Texas were aided rather significantly by GOP voters acting at the behest of Rush Limbaugh to vote for Hillary in order to drag this Hillary scorched earth campaign on for a few more months.
Obama would start out in a much stronger position than McCain than Clinton would, although she is trying her hardest to smear the guy off the face of the earth. I am no cult follower but I like Obama for his cool and calm, his intellect and oratory, his ethics, and his progressive leanings, which are much more progressive compared to the conservative and Machiavellian Hillary Clinton. I will vote for her in the highly unlikely event she wins, but the Superdelgates will back Obama because they want to win and win big if possible, and only Obama has the chance of winning a sweeping victory. Hillar will win too, but it will be as ugly and corrosive as her primary capaign tactics have recently become. So if you want to experience a sweeping win, one that transforms Amercia in a progressive direction fo the next 20-30 years or more, there is only one choice -- Obama. If you are content to win ugly and tight, and thereby continue the highly corrosive and exhausting partisan politics of the last 40 years, by all means vote for Clinton -- she's your best choice for that outcome. Sad.
March 10, 2008 1:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
California, Texas, Ohio, Florida, Michigan, Massachusettes, etc and all the northeastern states will back Hillary to the very end.
This comment absolutely has to be a joke. Texas backing Hillary? In the general election? Over McCain? Hardly likely.
But I must admit, it was a very subtle giveaway. Well played, master satirist.
March 10, 2008 12:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
GeoDubyaLozer said:
"When the California primary was run, Hillary gathered about 2 million more votes than McCain got. Are you Obama backing fools going to gamble with 2 million votes if you won't vote for Hillary if Obama does not win the Democratic nomination?"
Say what? Anyone ignorant enough to actually believe California is at risk if Obama is the candidate is the real fool here. No chance in hell that happens. Same goes for the Hillary states of NY, MA, NJ, RI and NH. Those are Dem locks.
"The only states Obama is winning is the same states that GeoDubyahLozer carried against Al Gore. "
More foolishness. So Dubya carried Illinois, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Washington, Maine, Maryland, Connecticut, Iowa and Vermont? Wow. He must have won in a landslide.
March 9, 2008 4:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Is this satire?
Back a winner for once? I think that's what I'm doing, chief. You need to check the scoreboard. And CA ain't goin' red for McCain. Keep dreaming.
March 9, 2008 5:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Catch a clue, you Obamamaniacs! Of course California and the rest that Hillary has won will go red because of the "Democrats for McCain" movement that is forming out here! If you are too young to remember what the "Reagan Democrats" did for him in the 1980 election,...here's the way it went. Reagan won everything except Minn.,WV,Maryland, Hawaii and Georgia..Carter's home state. Electoral votes: Reagan 489...Carter 49. This is what the Reagan Democrats did for him....and it's what the McCain Dems will do for McCain if Obama happens to pull it off..which I don't believe will happen. Too many unanswered questions about him!
March 9, 2008 8:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
It seems as if Hillary's supporters are now the ones who can fairly be described as delusional -- delusional in thinking or saying that Grandapa McCain could beat Obama, and delusional in thinking that Hillary can win the nomination at this point.
There are far more unknowns about Hillary's ethics and campaign fundraising -- let's see those tax returns -- and in a battle of who has the most inside Washington experience to be CIC, McCain clearly kicks her ass (he has 3-4 times as much "experience" as she does by that metric). Proximity and experience are not the same thing. But more importantly, the math is bad for her, and will get worse, even if Hillary cheats her way to seating the MI and FL delegates -- and teh Superdelegates know full well which of the two is poised to do better in the General Election. It is only a matter of time before they put Hillary Clinton and her smear tactics and narcissism into the dustbin of history.
When it comes to cool and calm, humility, intellect, articulateness, and excellent judgment, Obama kicks the crap out of both of them. It is easy to see, and Americans will have no trouble overcoming their uncertainties given the choice between him and someone who will do anything, and destroy anybody and anything, to win. She has come to represent everything that people can't stand, and want to move on from -- and he will be the catalyst for that, once and for all.
March 10, 2008 1:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
I agree, and the key word in your post was "legitimate." I, for one, am tired of stolen elections-- why don't we stop pretending, and just have a good old-fashioned military coup.
March 9, 2008 9:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
"I agree, and the key word in your post was "legitimate." I, for one, am tired of stolen elections-- why don't we stop pretending, and just have a good old-fashioned military coup."
Ha! That's in the works apparently.
March 10, 2008 2:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
When Florida and Michigan come back into play, which they will, Obama will be finished. Then we can put your creative math to bed for good. Obama is not ready for this job. HILLARY '08
March 9, 2008 10:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Plus McCain is going to self-destruct. Have you read some of the things he's been saying. He's avoiding trouble at every turn. Imagine when Obama starts lighting his azz up with tough questions. McCain is too ego centered to win a campaign with an intelligent rational opponent opposing him.
And by the way, that automatically rules out Hillary! Her ego is colossal!
March 9, 2008 10:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
The math is impossible for Clinton. She needs to take about 2/3 of the vote in all remaining contests to even get close. And she has only won one state -- Arkansas -- by over 60% of the vote all year. Sounds like a long shot to me!
March 9, 2008 10:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree with your post here wholeheartedly... I only wish that the news media would do the math as well.
March 9, 2008 10:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
OK, but the Clinton campaign must know this, too, right? So why are they still in it?
See, you've forgotten that Clinton is a Rovian politician that thinks reality can be shaped by denying the reality you don't like and acting like world is just as you desire it to be.
March 9, 2008 11:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Of course, you're not taking recounts of Michigan and Florida into account. Those are two big states that will likely break for Hillary.
It's okay, though. I realize that the Obama supporter strategy at this point is to try to drive Hillary out of the race when she should obviously fight tooth and nail all the way to the convention.
March 10, 2008 12:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
In a do-over of MI and FL, Hillary would likely win FL by 10-12% (meaning a 52/48 split her way in pledged delegates under proportional voting), and Obama would likely win MI by 10 points (meaning a 52/48 split his way in pledged delegates under proportional voting). She will net 5-10 delegates at most, and her absolute best case is 20 net. That might partially offset her delegate losses in WY, MS, OR, IN, NC and a few others between now and then (and PA will be much closer than OH, not noly because of the evolving demographics in Western and Central PA, but also because it will take place after Hillary lost her mind and started publicly conceding McCain's qualifications to serve as CIC, which I think is a bonehead move motivated by intense selfishness and lack of regard for the party. By her articulated standards, Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld are far more qualified than she is to serve as CIC. And robert Byrd would be surpassed only by Strom Thurmond, were he still alive. What a dope.
Quality is always more important than quantity, and proximity to power is not synonymous with experience or good judgment. Let's be honest, the only reason Hillary won MI was that her name was the ONLY name on the ballot -- which was not an accident, since she is such a avid student of Machiavelli and his political tactics, and a willing proponent of soviet style elections if she can get away with them. She has fully intended to pull this crap from day one -- i.e., breaking the rules everybody agreed to play by, thmd her nose at everybody else who voted, and play the disenfrachisement game to justify a non-competitive, unfair outcome that she agreed would not count befroe it took place, which is a shameful bait and switch. Of course, MI was the essence of a perfect election night in Hillary-World -- no opposition at all. And yet, Uncommitted still pulled mroe than 30% of the vote. She should be ashamed.
March 10, 2008 2:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
You have the math right, but you haven't reckoned with Neocon math yet. Hillary now says that pledged deleghates won in primaries may change their votes. She has had her Neoccon friends in Canada pull a big fast one that changed things for her in Texas,Ohio, and Rhode Island. Our great media helped too, jumping in and amplifying that "leak" of false information just in time to have maximum effect. Note that the correction which was issued the day after the vote (with, of course, a meaningless appology and an admission that it was unfair to Obama) has been loudly ignored! A mouse roars like that. Clinton has yet to appologize for her well timed fake bews report radio ads just before the vote. Do you ever expect one?
And Hillary and the Neocons are dreaming up ways of more cheating. Someone has correctly said that she is a Neocon and merely "un con." She is as disgrace to the Senate!
March 10, 2008 12:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
Possible Anti-Clinton Sentiment in Philadelphia: Bill Clinton went out of his way years ago to stump for John Street, who went on to become perhaps the worst mayor in the history of the city--a laughing stock whose aides and relatives became the subject of serious and absurd criminal investigations while the city devolved into a Wild West shooting gallery to become the murder capital of the country. One wonders whether Hillary will be penalized in the city for Bill's embrace of a notoriously failed mayoralty, and what pressures new Mayor Nutter (well-liked and promising in an Obama-like, reformer way) may face trying to cram his candidate, Hillary, down the throats of a constituency that is hungry for change and hope. Under the right circumstances, Pennsylvania could prove to be Hillary Clinton's donnybrook.
As for the Pennsyl-tucky belt between Pittsburgh and Philadelphia, it is a mistake to compare our rural voters to those in Ohio. Pennsylvania's heritage is German and Quaker, and although these groups have long since been assimilated, there is a residual live-and-let-live tone to our politics. Witness the 2006 stomping delivered to the strident US Senator Santorum by the mild-mannered milquetoast campaign of Bob Casey. I would not be surprised to see the result a surprise to the know-it-all pundits.
March 10, 2008 5:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
This is fascinating! I wonder, and maybe you can fill me in here: we have all read lately about "machine" politics in PA. Could you give us a feel for the level of corruption in Philadelphia? What is the likelihood of, say, Obama pulling out a win in actuality, but the machine stealing it for Clinton?
March 10, 2008 7:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
Clinton is a master at managing the perception. She's cherry picking states that demographically favor and her and saying that those are must win states and then putting a face of faux terror weeks before it. I mean it's disgusting, she has a double digit lead in texas shrink to 3 points and a another lead cut in half in Ohio and this is a come back?
So now she's doing the same in PA. A state that's whiter, poorer and less educated than the rest of the U.S. a Hillary bonaza and yet I'm sure her double digit lead will be single points on election night and the mantra will be...ZOMG A COMEBACK!?
Why isn't the MSM being more critical? If Obama were in her shoes every single press interview would begin with, "When are you dropping out, for the good of the party?"
March 10, 2008 9:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
We're less educated and poorer??? I don't think so...but whiter, yeah.
I live in Pittsburgh, and am no expert at these things...but as an observer, I know that the Dem "machine" still exists here, though it's certainly not like it was in the David Lawrence/Tom Foerster days. A straw poll among local Dem committeepeople last month had Hillary winning by a significant margin...and the middle of the state is definitely a problem for Obama. The Santorum blowout was a wonderful thing, but that was an R versus a Dem (not to mention an R who had finally driven almost everyone crazy with his ego and arrogance). When it comes to the D primary, the more conservative D will win (Bob Casey being an excellent example, a pro-life heretofore undistinguished political hack).
So between the vestiges of machine politics in both big cities, the low African-American voter turnout (at least until now), and mid-state conservatism, it looks good for Hillary. But it's not winner take all, and I think Obama will come out of here with a sizable number of delegates.
I really struggled for awhile with the idea of opposing the first serious female candidate for president, but no more. The Clintons should be ashamed of themselves...maybe Hillary can be McCain's VP - why not? He's old, he might die before 2012...h'mm. Don't tell tham I said this.
March 10, 2008 10:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/03/06/for_obama_an_uphill_battle_in_p.html?hpid=topnews
http://matthewyglesias.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/03/pennsylvania_demographics.php
http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/42000.html
March 10, 2008 12:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Okay trying this again.
Not to insult Pennsylvanians, but link shows, less educated and whiter and poorer than the U.S. on average.
http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/42000.html
March 10, 2008 12:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
You've got a point. Delusional....
versus
Barack "Who's Sane" Obama
March 10, 2008 11:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
Newsflash. Collecting Democratic delegates in places where Democrats cannot win in November is not a strategy for winning the GE in Nov. If Obama is the nominee, we lose. I'd be happy to have Obama as nominee had he (won or if he wins) one of the following: Ohio, California, Pennsylvania, Florida, or Michigan. Winningone of those wouldprove his viability. He has not and I dont think he will. His reluctance to let Florida and MI be revoted do not reflect well on him as a democratic candidate. His inability to win these states means he will lose in November.
McGovern-Dukakis-Obama.
March 10, 2008 11:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
Newsflash. Collecting Democratic delegates in places where Democrats cannot win in November is not a strategy for winning the GE in Nov.
Newsflash: Not attempting to reach out beyond traditional Democratic strongholds is not a viable strategy for winning the general election. Projecting strength into your opponents' back yard, however, is, because it forces them to spend money in places where they feel like they shouldn't have to.
March 10, 2008 12:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
sancho:
It's called a 50-state strategy. You have to compete in every state to be viable. The 2006 elections proved this. Otherwise, why have a Democratic party in these "places where Democrats cannot win in November."
Also, your argument assumes that in a general election, Obama can't win the states that Hillary has won and Hillary can easily carry states like Texas and Ohio. This is ridiculous. Obama would likely carry California, New York and Massachusetts and other Clinton states in the fall.
Furthermore, Obama has never expressed a will to halt a second vote in Florida and Michigan. He certainly hasn't promoted it, but he has said he would follow party rules as he has in the past. Clinton has only expressed the desire to have the vote in Florida and Michigan counted. She's not promoting a new vote; she wants to count the previous results. I predict that if the idea of a new vote gains any real traction, Clinton will not be very excited about it.
March 10, 2008 12:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Spin, spin, spin. Using racism and the bogus Canadian NAFTA crap, the Clintons managed to limit an actually fairly strong late Obama surge in Texas and Ohio and win always-likely states--and call it a come-back. Last week it was totally ridiculous claims that a few foreign ceremonial laps and state dinners at the WH make Hillary "commander-in-chief ready." So even though Obama's well ahead in the delegate vote, he'd better get ready to settle for VP. Now, IT ALL DEPENDS on Pennsylvania--and by the way, if Obama ends up ahead by "only" 90 or 95 delegates, that's not a win.
All this would be shake-your-head laughable if the big media weren't directly recycling this BS onto their front pages and news shows.
Resist, Resist! I think the Clintons have actually so overreached with this nonsense that, as usual, the voters are ahead of the press and will soon start showing it in the remaining primaries. For anybody who cares about better-than-braindead democracy--Resist!
March 10, 2008 12:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
So, Sancho, you think that Obama is collecting delegates in states where the Democrats can't win in November?
Sorry, but SurveyUSA disagrees with you. They surveyed 30,000 potential voters for November to assess their preferences for Hillary vs McCain & then Obama vs McCain. Both beat McCain but they do it by winning different states.
Hillary wins the traditional Democratic states in the Northeast/Midwest industrial belt, but she wins only 5 states west of the Mississippi - California, Hawaii, New Mexico, Arkansas, & Minnesota.
Barack beats McCain by a bigger margin despite losing Pennsylvania, West Virginia, & New Jersey! He picks up states that Hillary loses in the NE/MW - New Hampshire, Virginia, & Michigan - and he wins 6 states that she loses west of the Mississippi - Iowa, North Dakota, Colorado, Nevada, Oregon, & Washington. He also wins all of the other Western states that she wins except Arkansas. He also puts Nebrasks in play for the Democrats, which was a tie in the Obama-McCain survey & couldn't be given to either side.
So, forget your theory that Barack will lose to McCain in California, or that he won't win some red states, or that he can't retain enough of the industrial states to win.
The crime that Hillary is committing is that she is spending time & resources to destroy the likely nominee of the Democratic Party. Roanld Reagan was wise to create his 11th Commanment: Don't speak ill of another Republican. The Democrats should follow this same rule.
March 10, 2008 12:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
maggi -
one problem in your seamless logic. ronald reagan was a popular governor FROM california. mccain is not from california. you hillary-heads are really living in a fantasy world at this point. wake up. hillary's already lost. she's going home with a big middle finger from the american electorate.
March 10, 2008 1:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am always amused by those who somehow posit that a candidate winning a primary in a state that is reliably tilted towards one party, say a California, New York or MA somehow means that they would win that state in the general while the other candidate would not. It is so clearly illogical and nonsensical as to rise well beyond the level of normal political bullshit.
On the other hand, clear victories in swing states that could very well actually be decisive in winning a national election like Virginia, Colorado or Wisconsin are considered less important. The only way this makes sense is if you stand on your head and close one eye.
Generally, not a good position to be in.
March 10, 2008 1:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
well, i think that it is safe to say, given the leaked polling data from the Obama camp, that they knew that they would'nt win either Texas or Ohio...there concentration on the urban areas further exacerbated the situation among the "archie bunker types"...20% citing race as a factor and 59% of those voting for Clinton...the loss was largely demographic in nature...
the curious spin that gets missed is that whenever the demographics don't suit Clinton, the press marginalizes and downplays the importance of that state, i.e...she's just looking to keep it close or she's not conceding anything...and when she loses these states, less attention is paid to the fact that she could'nt close the deal, or that buyers remorse is setting in...but Obama losses are spun as such.
The Obama camp has to already know that they likely won't win Pennsylvania either...15% over 65, smaller youth vote, smaller AA population, more working class voters (archie bunker types)...so you see where this is going...but what the MSM convieniently fails to mention in their quest to maintain viewership, is that Obama will have the last laugh in equally large North Carolina soon after...any advantage she gains will be shortlived once again...
if Obama wins North Carolina with the popular vote largely in hand (>700,000) then he'll probably go on to the nomination...i think that her strongest legitimate claim would be a popular vote lead...there'll be no way to catch him either in states won, popular vote or pledged delegates...
revotes in FL and MI will more than likely be much closer than earlier results, especially in Michigan...if he keeps his trifecta of leads then it'll be hard for SD's to argue against the will of the people...as it stands, she needs a landslide in Pennsylvania to get some real momentum with the superdelegates.
the Obama camp needs to canvass the rural areas like they did'nt in Ohio...have townhall meetings like they had in Texas...do the rhetoric rallies in urban areas but roll out the Q&A meetings in the rural areas...you have to earn the votes with those people, shake a lot of hands, hold a lot of babies, take a lot of pictures and explain what your plans are up close and personal...
Obama can usually bring some voters in once they get to know him so they have a monumental task but they also have six weeks in which to work with a superior ground game...if he keeps Clinton to a ten point margin or less, then he's done very well considering the demographics...
March 10, 2008 1:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
BTW I found a fantastic article...A MUST read for EVERYONE
“The Hussein Dynamic” at http://savagepolitics.com.
Brilliant writing that goes beyond what the MSM is feeding us!!!!
March 10, 2008 1:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment