Reader Posts
« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
Obama Campaign, Please Wake up: the Delegate Math Doesn't Matter
This from Carolyn Lochhead, Beltway correspondent for the San Francisco Chronicle:
In Congress, the motherlode ofFor weeks, the Obama campaign (and we supporters of it) have been hypnotized by "the math" that shows his "insurmountable" delegate lead. But there's a terrible catch that we don't seem to want to see:
superdelegates, the thinking is that the nomination is Obama's unless
Clinton pulls off a decisive win in Indiana. If she does, then all bets
are off and Democrats are in big trouble.
Those counts include the superdelegates who have made endorsements. And all those endorsements are non-binding. The superdelegates can change their minds at any moment.
And they will change their minds, the second they see Obama as unelectable, or as having lost his momentum, or as being unable to handle right-wing attacks about Wright or Ayers. Howard Dean just said it: the duty of the superdelegates is to make a decision based on electability, not the winner of the pledged delegate horserace.
All those superdelegates who endorsed Obama when he was riding high because they wanted the party to close ranks will feel perfectly entitled to shift to Clinton if they come to perceive the Obama campaign as a sinking ship.
In short, the "delegate totals" that the campaign keeps tossing out as proof that not even a loss in Indiana can change the outcome are meaningless.
This is the real math: if Clinton finishes the primaries 100 pledged delegates behind Obama, she'll only need a 450-350 split among superdelegates to catch him. How hard will that be if she's coming off a series of big wins and national polls, like today's AP poll, show her stacking up better against McCain?
The Obama camp's fury about the superdelegates "overruling the voters" will ring hollow if Obama hasn't won a tough race since February and he's trailing in the polls. Party leaders have no interest in nominating a candidate who piled up a delegate lead with a strong February and then backed his way through a flat March, April and May.
I don't want to be shrill, but I feel I should repeat myself, because when I've said this before people keep responding with, "But if you look at the math..."
All the math we're being shown includes existing superdelegate endorsements. And existing superdelegate endorsements don't mean squat.
Look at the superdelegates who have already switched from Clinton to Obama. You think they can't switch back?
The bottom line: Barack Obama can still lose the nomination. Easily. Indiana can kill the dream.
He has to go back to campaigning like he wants to win. And then he has to do it. He has to win.
Advertisement
Comments (50)
This blog makes no sense because the Supers are not going to back Hillary Clinton if Barack has the pledged delegate lead - even if he limps into Denver having lost all nine.
Polls always shift and politicians understand that better than voters. Hillary's negative rating is the only poll Supers care about right now.
There is only one metric that is legitimate in the eyes of the electorate and that is the one every agreed to at the beginning. There is only one constituency that the Supers really care about as well and that is the voters.
Barack will be fine.
April 28, 2008 6:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
I sure do hope you're right, Jason. But I'm a bit troubled by the fact that Dean, whom I've always thought was quietly on Obama's side, is suddenly making a point that the supers should not feel bound by pledged totals and need to make their own decision about electability. That sounds to me like a very clear signal to the supers that they should reconsider the pressure to coalesce around Obama.
April 28, 2008 6:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
How can you get that from that statement? It could just as easily mean he he saying that those who currently support Hillary should get on the Obama bandwagon. Come on people! All this doom and gloom is hardly appropriate.
April 29, 2008 6:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think you're wrong on this. Hillary gets an endorsement from NC governor? Tides turn and so do superdelegates. In the end, they're all just politicians. The more evidence the Clintons gather and wining in NC and IN is pretty damning evidence, the better their case becomes.
April 28, 2008 6:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
But that doesn't change the math or the voters idea of fair play. If Barack leads in pledged delegates and states won and popular vote, then the supers giving the nomination to Hillary at the convention or otherwise leads to massive riots in this country. If it doesn't, I am moving somewhere that it would, because the country I love will be dead.
April 29, 2008 6:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
Jason, unless you have inroads into the workings of the uppermost echelons of the democratic party, you're talking through your hat. This is politics and it's a nasty game, and if Obama gets trounced in Indiana -- please god he won't -- but if he does, he'll have little momentum going into North Carolina, and an unimpressive win there after a poor showing in Indiana would mean real trouble.
April 28, 2008 6:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Eh hemmmmm.... Indiana and North Carolina are on the same day.
April 28, 2008 6:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry forgot. Thanks for reminding me.
April 28, 2008 6:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
I should note that Indiana and NC are on the same day...but your general point, I think, is valid. If she wins IN and runs closer in NC than expected, then wins WV and KY, and either pulls off an upset or at least runs close in OR...the perception that Obama can hold the party together is going to shift. I think it's very important that he win the toss-up state and at least hold onto big leads where he's favored.
April 28, 2008 6:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yet, somehow Hillary will overcome a 54% negative rating to hold the party together? This is an argument that Hillary would like but doesn't make much sense to me.
The Supers have no choice but to go with who is the perceived winner based on vote totals. Anything else leads to massive riots and this country teetering a little bit closer to the abyss.
April 29, 2008 7:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
If the Super Delegates take this nomination away from Barack, providing he leads in all three metrics, Denver will make Chicago look like a tea party. You must think these people are not only politicians but stupid as stumps. I don't think they are. I think it is you who are talking out of their hat.
April 29, 2008 6:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
There is only one metric that is legitimate in the eyes of the electorate and that is the one every agreed to at the beginning.
--------------------------------------------------
Much as you want to believe that its simply not true. I have seen several polls that show a majority of the electorate believe the popular vote is the most legitimate.
April 28, 2008 7:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yet that isn't what the rules say. Americans LOVE rules. They may think the popular vote is more legitimate metric, as do I, but those aren't the rules that the game is being played by.
The American voter will want whomever leads in pledged delegates to be the nominee - that the same person leads in states won and popular vote just makes it more compelling.
April 29, 2008 7:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
Wake up Obama supporters. Ask the Obama campaign to grit its teeth. I just heard that Obama felt his campaign has gone too negative. Too negative? He didn't lose PA. because his campaign went too negative, he lost PA. because the Clintons gutted him and he didn't gut them back.
Sorry, but people are walking all over him and a holier than thou strategy is failing right now. This part of the election isn't at all like what preceded it.
This guy has to throw a punch.
April 28, 2008 6:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
I just heard him say what I thought was one of the stupidest things he'll ever say. He told people at a rally that he didn't seek the nomination to fight Hillary Clinton.
So we see that while she's making mincemeat out of him in terms of media perception right now, he's just rolling over and letting her do it.
While she and her campaign are out there showing every reason they can come up with why he's supposedly unelectable, he never points out her through the roof unfavourability ratings. While everyone in the media is talking about how the republicans are going to swiftboat him on Wright, Ayers etc, he and his campaign never mention that the Republicans have said they have new issues they can swiftboat Hillary on.
While he's out there saying we need to change the way in which Washington operates, he not only lets her off the hook on the way in which she exemplifies the way it operates, he actually says she's running a terrific campaign.
This man doesn't seem to understand that he's in a competition with her right now.
If he wants to be positive - fine. If he wants to go out there and pulverise McCain - fine, but he really doesn't. Where do you see him really going for the jugular on McCain - much of his airtime on it is saying how much he respects his service and then going on about 100 years in Iraq. Do you see him listing how McCain's policies do absolutely nothing for the poor? Do you see him highlighting what McCain's policies really mean for most schools in this country?
Why hasn't he at least processed that if he wants to go out there and be positive, that's fine, so long as he's got some really maximum exposure surrogates out there making the case against Hillary?
He's going down in Indiana. He'll go down there big-time. She's a wonderful stumper nowadays. She talks household reality and she does it in their vernacular. By contrast,O bama's committed electoral suicide with people who don't have much money, who are finding their household budgets crippled by gas prices and she's offered them some relief on those throughout the summer, just as McCain has, while he's saying no. (Sure there's a valid reason for that which people who can afford to pay these prices can understand and respect. That doesn't help people who can't afford to pay them. Hillary does.)
If you don't yet accept that he's going down in Indiana, take a look at today's SUSA: Clinton 52, Obama 43.
Factor in how the Republicans are using Wright in the down ballots. If you were a down ballot Democratic politician, how would you feel about opting to go up against that sort of campaign when, simply by coming out for Hillary, you wouldn't have to. For the others, why on earth would you opt for Wright screaming `Barack HUSSEIN Obama` in endless GOP ads?
Then factor in one other crucial variable. Obama's very `niceness` is going to work against him in terms of the one massive argument that could have otherwise maybe kept superdelegates in his camp. He's promised to do everything he can to bring his supporters in behind Hillary if she wins. Superdelegates can switch to Hillary knowing that he will work to bring in the African Americans - ensure there's no permanent damage. Sure they might have stayed home had he done a Kennedy, but he’s not going to. He’s promised them that. Stay home when McCain offers more of the same economic policies that work so badly against them? Stay home when McCain means right wing Supreme Court judges?
I’m actually wondering now if he already has accepted that he’s not going to get the nomination and is just going through the motions and will concede after Indiana.
Sad. He’s a fine man. It’s America’s and the world’s loss. Stuck with Hillary now – nauseating.
April 28, 2008 8:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks. This is what's troubling me. He isn't running as if he's trying to beat Clinton. And the superdelegates are watching this. If he can't beat Clinton when she's really fighting, will he fight hard enough in the general?
April 28, 2008 8:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
He's already beating Clinton. What they hell are you talking about? He HAS run and CONTINUES to run to win. He isn't going to get into a mud slinging match with the other democrat. That, also, is why he is WINNING! Jesus Christ people.
April 29, 2008 7:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
If Hillary STEALS the nomination, this country will go up in flames. It has done it before and it is long overdue to do it again. If you think the Supers aren't aware of that fundamental FACT, I guess we will agree to disagree.
Barack knows exactly what he is doing, winning the nomination WITHOUT destroying Clinton and alienating the majority of her supporters at the same time. Trust me, the Supers see what is going on and that is why they continue to move toward Barack.
April 29, 2008 7:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
This is total nonsense. Delegate math doesn't matter? Then what the heck is the point of even having primaries and caucuses?
Obama doesn't need to "gut the Clintons back". He's not a fool. He can see what that did for Hillary - yeah, she won PA, but at the cost of alienating way too many Dems.
The Democrats are in serious trouble already, all because Hillary knows she has nothing to lose and fights dirty. Of course Dems are idiots for letting her do it, and if they lose in November, it will be deserved.
April 28, 2008 6:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hoping you're right, too. But I've been reading Carolyn Lochhead on Washington buzz for 15 or 20 years and I've found her sense of what's being said is usually pretty sound. When she reports that the feeling in Congress is that if Clinton wins Indiana "all bets are off," I believe she's really hearing something. I do believe that there is sincere concern among the Democratic leadership that Obama's campaign is running of steam. He still has something to prove.
April 28, 2008 6:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
To point to anyone in the system as it currently exists as having any sense of what the country is thinking is a little self-defeating. The Supers are not judging this contest by so narrow a measure.
Barack has already proven all he needs to prove. Period. He has shown that he can bring in democrats, independents and republicans to push for a new way of doing things. The Supers may be scared of what he represents, but they feas massive riots way more if they steal the nomination from the winner.
April 29, 2008 8:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
Obama has been campaigning like he wants to win. What makes you think they are sleeping?
Are you pretending like Pennsylvania or Ohio was a tough race that Hillary had to win? She was favored to win there just like Obama was favored in Wyoming and Missippi.
Superdelegates have announced 5 to 1 for Obama since Pennsylvania.
Her performances in Indiana and North Carolina will have to be pretty incredible for superdelegates to begin switching their votes from Obama. They are not going to risk breaking the party by overturning Obama's delegate count just because Hillary says she is more electable and some of the remaining contests favored her.
April 28, 2008 6:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Everybody, say hello to President McCain. Try again in 2012. That year will be a shoo in for democrats. Maybe. With the added benefit of PA and OH not counting for as many electoral votes because of the census in 2010.
April 28, 2008 6:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
How many Obama super delegates switched back to Hillary after her "decisive" wins in Nevada (I know)? Ohio? Rhode Island? Texas?(I know) Pennsylvania?
If these delegates have gone to Obama -- which is not the "safe" choice -- why do you think they would switch back having already taken the big risk?
Think Roadrunner and Wyle E. Coyote. Hillary is the coyote. Barack is the Roadrunner. In other words, having purchased the ACME Personal Flying Machine Kit, strapped it on and jumped off the cliff, how many of her super delegates are furiously flapping their arms trying to fly back up the mountain? How many of his are busting out their credit cards to make a few ACME purchases.
April 28, 2008 6:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks, I'm enjoying this discussion. I see a big difference between her winning the states she was always expected to win and her winning Indiana, which the Obama campaign used to have in their "safe victory" column. And yet polls show that she's in good shape to do that.
Also, her winning by 9.2% in PA after it seemed as though he'd made it closer. And her post-PA rise in the polls. For the first time, Clinton is closing gaps in "his" states and widening them in "her" states. And he continues, week after week, to look like he's on the defensive instead of marching toward the nomination.
April 28, 2008 6:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
which the Obama campaign used to have in their "safe victory" column.
When? The "leaked spreadsheet" showed it very close, with Obama winning by a very small margin. Most polls have had Hillary ahead in Indiana.
I think you've been taken in by the Hillary campaign doing a good job of setting expectations. OH, TX and PA were states that Obama just had to win or else the superdelegates would abandon him in droves (they said), but she won OH and PH and "won" TX ... and superdelegates are still going to Obama over Hillary by a factor of four or five to one. Why is the same argument suddently supposed to gain traction now when it hasn't worked yet?
And he continues, week after week, to look like he's on the defensive instead of marching toward the nomination.
He's continued to gain in pledged delegates, so that Hillary has no hope of catching up in that count.
He's won more states, which gives him the edge in add-on delegates.
Hillary peaked with a lead of more than 100 superdelegates a couple of months ago, and Obama has gradually cut that down now to 20 (or more like 15, if you count the ones who have said they would go with the candidate who wins the most pledged delegates).
And those gains continue at a rate of four or five to every one that Hillary picks up, even after the "big state" wins that Hillary supporters said would convince the supers that Obama was unelectable. (To which, in case anyone thinks that argument holds water, please see Josh's article http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/190967.php.) These gains continued even after the Wright story and others that Hillary supporters said would convince the supers that Obama was unelectable.
What part of this looks like he's on the defensive?
April 28, 2008 7:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think his own comments and actions since "Bittergate" have been unfortunately reactive and defensive. The recent suggestion that he might be "bored" running against Hillary fits the way he's been campaigning.
Although this exchange has made me a little more optimistic, I still fear that this whole "Obama's already won, why do we have to keep going through these damn primaries" psychology is hurting him and the campaign. I still say it's time to get the hell away from "the math" and start campaigning as if Obama has a lot to prove. Because what's trickling out from Howard Dean and other party leaders is that he DOES have a lot to prove still.
April 28, 2008 7:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
`How many Obama super delegates switched back to Hillary after her "decisive" wins in Nevada (I know)? Ohio? Rhode Island? Texas?(I know) Pennsylvania?`
All we know is that most superdelegates are keeping their cards close to their chest until the primaries are finished so that they're perceived not to be disrespectful of the process.
What the vocal ones have done tells us nothing about what the majority of unannounced think or whom they're supporting.
April 28, 2008 8:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Spade, after the Reagan Democrats -- cum working class white guys cum blue collar voters cum low paid screwed at work their whole lives grandmothers who want to know about flag pins -- vote for John McCain, is it at least possible I won't have to hear about them from the Democrats in 2012 and ever again. Can I at least look forward to that, oh please oh please oh please.
April 28, 2008 6:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
That is such a small slice of the electorate that I am not sure what your point is. The vast majority of the electorate is under 50 years old and are NOT "Reagan Democrats." Flag pins won't win this year and McCain doesn't stand a chance against Barack.
April 29, 2008 8:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
Oh yes, delegate math does matter. Particularly when the question is, "should we screw the largest and most loyal voting bloc in the party out of a legitimately victory won by the rules on the basis of one person's desires and specious arguments about why she should be the winner even though she didn't win?"
That's really what this is going to boil down to. Hillary's claim to the superdelegates is that older white women should be the favored constituency. Never mind that white women deserted the party en masse in the presidential elections of 1980, 84, 88, 2000, and 2004. Never mind that the group "older Democratic white women" represents about 1/3 as many voters as African American Democratic voters. Who, by the way, NEVER deserted the party for the Republicans. But that's her basic argument - older white female voters should be considered a better group to win.
Obama's argument, which I suspect is being made on his behalf by members of the black caucus, is that there will be a price to pay for screwing your most loyal supporters.
I gotta go with the latter. My view is that short of some inexpicably horrible revelations that I can't even imagine, in which case pretty much ALL of the voters were in agreement that a different nominee was needed, the party would take years to recover from alienating its most stalwart base. IF it could recover. Losing this year's election thanks to a lot of loyal Democrats staying home would merely be the beginning of some very bad fallout. And in my view, entirely well-deserved bad fallout.
Bottom line: at this point, from the standpoint of the party's health, it may even be preferable to lose the election with an Obama nomination than to win it with a Clinton one - something that I now consider an impossibility, thanks to what I outlined previously in terms of who really makes up the Democratic base.
The Party has already cast its lot with Obama, for better or worse, and I'd venture that most of the superdelegates already know it.
April 28, 2008 7:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks, Jenn. I can feel my stomach unknotting...my breath deepening...the spots fading from before my eyes...
April 28, 2008 7:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is the best comment I have seen in a long, long time that illustrates the nonsense that some Obama supporters have started to dive into.
Here's what you are saying:
- Because the women didn't vote Democrat in the past elections (i.e. became swing voters), they are inreliable. Nevermind that Bush won the White House partly because of their support, we shouldn't care.
- AA voters are loyal Dem voters. Their loyalty to Obama is so unquestionable, that they would overwhelmingly vote for McCain spending cuts and tax breaks for the rich then for a party that always fought for them, regardless of the nominee
- Party's health is damaged (how quickly that can happen!!) and only Obama can nurse it back. And by damage you mean only the AA voters (see above for the reasons).
It's good to know that you'd rather lose with Obama than win with Clinton, because to quote Markos, I don't consider you a Democrat.
April 28, 2008 7:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Lalo - don't be naive. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see how this plays out if this goes to the convention. Millions of voters of all types will be completely and utterly disgusted by the process. Large portions of the AA community will abondon her. Will they vote for McCain? Not sure but I would safely say a lot of them will stay home. The race baiting the Clintons have engaged in leaves them no choice in their minds and I don't blame them. In fact I might even join them. Hillary has no moral compass and I don't trust her to be president.
The supers are smart enough to see that the future of the Democratic party is tied up in the young voters that have come out for Obama. Even if he loses the general (and Hillary is working overtime to make sure he does), the Dems still win. It would be suicide to turn away from the largest generation of voters - even larger than the boomers.
The problem is that media won't talk about this and just assume that the good little loyal AA voters will still come out for her. BS.
As for not being a Democrat, Hillary seems to have made it pretty clear that she is a Republican so what difference does it make?
April 28, 2008 7:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
yup. imagine for a second how granting the nomination to HRC plays nationally and internationally. Step back. Rub your eyes and see the end of the Democratic party because that is what it would be.
The times have changed. HRC can say whatever she wants. She has to. She lost. But the Dems have to decide if they can live without her. I think the Baracks rolodex with all those new Dems says, wait for it, . . . "Yes they can."
April 28, 2008 7:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
This article as many of offers this view: Obama has shown that he is not perfect regardless of the 1.5M contributors, $250,000,000 debt free campaign, the Texas victory; the problem remains he is not perfect and he cannot close the deal?
So what did Clinton do?
April 28, 2008 7:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree with your points personally. But does it matter what we think is right or fair if, as Lochhead reports, the bias of superdelegates in Congress is that "all bets are off" if Clinton wins Indiana?
My basic point remains: what we have to do now is stop looking for evidence that "it's already over" and do whatever we can to help him win Indiana. A win there and he settles it. A loss...and we're still at the mercy of the superdelegates and their mysterious perceptions.
April 28, 2008 7:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't think you are entirely wrong. In general, I think delegate math matters a lot and that the vast majority of supers will not overturn the will of the people. So assuming things go the way we expect them to (Obama wins in NC, OR, MT, SD Clinton wins in KY, WV, PR and IN is close) then I see the supers backing the leader (Obama) no matter what.
Now I personally don't see why IN should be any more important than any other state. But one the problems we are dealing with here is the media buying in to the Clinton's new math. The media a) wants this race to go on and b) wants Obama to lose because poses too much of a threat. So to that degree, I can see what you are saying. The NC governor thing has me a little nervous. These people are not stupid. When they had conversations with the Clintons about the path to the nomination, they had an answer for him that he clearly bought in to. What does that tell us?
It is important to keep IN close. I think that would be fine coupled with a good NC win. Now if by some miracle she can pull off NC, then the Dems really are screwed.
April 28, 2008 7:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks, Tara. Again, I come back to what Howard Dean said earlier today: in his mind, the superdelegates should not heed the number of pledged delegates from the primaries but their own view of the candidates' "electability." Why does the party chairman say this if not to signal that Obama's nomination is NOT for certain? At the very least I think he's sending a signal to Obama: "You've got to PROVE you can still win elections."
April 28, 2008 7:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
It goes without saying that he still has to be able to win NC, OR, MT, and SD. Those are his states. IN is in play and he needs to keep it close.
I guess what her strategy is is to bloody him up so much that he does indeed limp to the finish line and then she takes it to the convention. It's so evil because it effectively hands the election to McCain. I'm not sure Obama could win after a brokered convention and I'm positive she couldn't.
My biggest beef about what Dean said was that this was effectively a tie. Bullshit. He is ahead 5.7% in the pledged delegate count. That is not a tie.
What a calmer less paranoid person might take Dean's comments to mean is that, assuming things go as planned, he knows that Obama will get it and he is being gracious to the Clintons and their supporters so as to not piss them off. I'm not so sure...but it is a thought.
April 28, 2008 7:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why does the party chairman say this if not to signal that Obama's nomination is NOT for certain?
Suppose that Obama's nomination is as certain as it could be at this point. What would you suggest that Dean say? He needs to reach out to the Hillary supporters, and once the race is essentially over he can afford to tell them what they want to hear. You think he should instead rub it in their faces?
And the part you're paraphrasing wasn't all he said, although it's the only part that you'll hear about if you listen to Hillary supporters. He aso said that he thinks it's unlikely that the superdels would overrule the pledged delegate winner. And he also said that it would be decided before the convention.
April 28, 2008 8:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Tara: I remember what it was like to be a calmer, less paranoid person. Vaguely. It seems like a long time ago.
Rabbit & Tara: yeah, maybe that was a consolation-prize comment to the Clintonites. Although then I would have expected something more like, "the superdelegates need to balance the results of the primaries AND electability." To this nervous, paranoid voter, what jumped out was that he seemed to be saying, "No, it will ONLY be electability, NOT the results of the primaries."
And yes, he said, "It's very unlikely that they'll go against the results of the primaries." But then there was that "BUT...." Does this context make Howard's BUT look big?
April 28, 2008 8:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Howard Dean has always said that the Supers should; respect the votes, but the rules state that they can follow their own consciences. He didn't say they should overturn the primaries.
April 29, 2008 8:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
Since NEITHER delegate is going to get the minimum needed to settle this thing with pledged delegates -- that is to say OBAMA WILL NOT HAVE WON enough delegates -- another logic comes into play. The post is dead on.
Kerry almost won last time, because of the discipline and party loyalty of the person who lost the nomination. No less will be expected of Obama if he loses the nomination.
April 28, 2008 7:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sister Mary Margaret on a whole wheat cracker, just absolutely Democrats drive me crazy with this crap. Every time there's a bump in the road they slam on the brakes jump out of the car and start doing the Chicken Little Dance. It is our worst trait and the best way possible to suck the life out of a campaign.
This electability crap Hillary has been peddling since she lost in Iowa is the same fear driven play-it-safe drivel that brought us Dukakis, Mondale and Kerry. It was crap after Iowa and it has not magically transmuted from crap into gold during the following months merely because she won two primaries she was expected to win by smaller than expected margins. It is also still crap notwithstanding the fcat that the good Rev. Wright has decided that now was the perfect time to try to push Obama into completely breaking with him.
In 1992, we went through this exact same Democratic dithering and handwringing over the terribly compromised and unelectable Bill Clinton (Gennifer Flowers being very much in the news at the time). Back in the fall, when Hillary started her "I'm inevitable, dammit" footstamping and artifically bumped her numbers up a few points, Obama had to go through the same faltering with his doners and supporters who were all "DO SOMETHING--GIVE A SPEECH, RUN COMMERCIALS OMGOMGOMG WE'RE SO SCARED." Just cut it out, already.
The general election is six months from now. What did this race look like six months ago? Hmmmm, as I recall, it looked like Hillary had it locked down and was going to run the table.
Yes, we've had a bad day, today. We may have one tomorrow, too. Toughen up, already, because we will definitely have some between now and the last primary and there will be still more between now and the first Tuesday in November. Getting all vapory about it every time we have one accomplishes absolutely nothing. It disempowers the individual who's acting scared and sucks the life out of the individual's comrades.
http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/fdrfirstinaugural.html
April 28, 2008 8:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm with you on the "toughen up," Former-Steve. Here's my question, though: what sucks more air out of a campaign, believing that nothing's guaranteed and we still have to fight to win? Or that "Barack's got it locked up, who cares who wins the last nine primaries"? Because I've been hearing this "the math proves his nomination is inevitable" stuff for weeks, and at the same time I've seen the candidate and his campaign looking tired and touchy. And the polls are not encouraging right now.
The big challenge facing the Obama campaign now, to my mind, isn't his supporters' fearfulness but our complacency. As you point out, Hillary's people thought she had it all locked up once too. It would be a terribly perfect irony if what let her back into contention was Obama's people believing the same.
April 28, 2008 8:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you! Cheese and crackers it gets tiring talking fellow progressive away from the cliff.
April 29, 2008 8:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
Personally, I think people are being pretty naive to think this is merely a bump in the road.
Whatever the case may be, I don't see Obama fighting for the nomination as passionately as Hillary.
Neither do the voters. Neither does the media. And if he loses IN and NC, neither will the superdelegates.
If he isn't fighting passionately against Hillary, he's not going to fight passionately against McCain.
You don't have to go into the gutter and fight it out to appear tough, engaged and resolute and determined.
Obama does not appear to have those characteristics right now.
He seems detached, dispassionate and somewhat resigned.
Maybe he doesn't want it as badly as he led us to believe.
April 28, 2008 9:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
If he isn't fighting passionately against Hillary, he's not going to fight passionately against McCain.
Given that it's mathematically extremely unlikely that Hillary can take the nomination away from him, then what does he have to gain by fighting passionately against Hillary and antagonizing her supporters?
April 28, 2008 9:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
`It is mathematically unlikely that the superdelegates can take the nomination away from him.
The only way they could do that would be if had `won` it. He hasn’t done that.
She’s going to win Indiana – and I’d suggest she’s going to win it big - unless something hugely negative for her happens there over the next week. She could win Oregon. There are plenty of highly educated men in Oregon who don’t have the sexist hangup and many other people who may well have by then concluded that Wright has indeed made Obama unelectable.
The conservative talkshow hosts are encouraging Republicans to continue `Operation Chaos` there. Contrary to what many pundits are suggesting, he does not have Oregon sewn up – any more than he has Indiana, which his campaign once counted safe.
The superdelegates could well support Clinton on the grounds that some of his early wins wouldn’t have happened had Wright exploded earlier and that they can’t in good conscience vote for a nominee whom they now consider unelectable. And, again, Obama himself has promised that he will do all in his power to unite the party and bring his supporters home for Clinton.
Sigh
Any chance he can use this one in Indiana? (From Huffington)
`Clinton is airing this advertisement in Indiana, bemoaning the closure of a defense contractor Magnequench's manufacturing plant in Valparaiso (she is also echoing this line in her stump speeches). Looking at the camera, she tells us she's upset that the 200 jobs that were sent to China, and that "now America's defense relies on Chinese spare parts." And then comes the kicker: She tells viewers that "George Bush could have stopped it, but he didn't."
Clinton is certainly right that it is a tragedy that 200 American jobs were killed in a corporate deal that also exported sensitive military technology to China. But she forgets to mention that it wasn't George Bush who was in the key position to stop it -- it was Bill Clinton.'
Someone, surely, has to bring home to voters yet again just how manipulative and shonky Hillary Clinton is. McAuliffe argues that voters trust her. Someone needs to keep reminding them again and again just why they can’t/don’t.
April 28, 2008 11:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment