Reader Posts
« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
Can Obama Coast to the Nomination?
Let's start by reviewing where we have been in recent days.
Since his string of wins after Super Tuesday, the primary season has not been kind to Barack Obama. First came Hillary's "saving" wins in the Ohio and the Texas Primaries, with RI thrown in as an added bonus. These wins came with Obama still playing at the top of his game, before Wright and Bittergate had emerged as issues. Talk among many Obama leaning pundits was that he would certainly win one or the other and would thereby close down the Clinton campaign.
Didn't happen. Even though he outspent her in both Texas and Ohio, even though he was coming of his impressive string of post-super Tuesday victories, even though his positives were soaring and her negatives high, she went toe-to-toe with him and won. She won a straight-up political fight, without having to resort to any particularly dirty, negative, racially tinged or particularly divisive tactics. The "hardest" blow thrown was Clinton's 3am ad, which may have swung Texas in her favor. And though some Obama supporters saw that as negative, that charge seems to me quite a stretch.
Could it be that Obama has something of a glass jaw?
Then came the interminable gap between Ohio and Pennsylvania. Obama spent and spent and spent. He saturated the airwaves in every corner of the state. But he still came up very short -- partly because of Wright, partly because of Bittergate, partly because of demography.
Obama's soft underbelly has been exposed. What can he do to "get back on track?"
The problem is, his act had already grown stale. He and his team seem to have no new ideas, no new plays up their sleeves. As some journalist said -- can't remember who -- he already desperately needed a second act. But I don't think he really has one.
He and his team are like an NFL team that's ahead by a touchdown, late in the fourth quarter of a tight game. They are playing prevent defense against a determined offense that keeps chewing up more and more ground. Their only hope is that the clock will run out.
But here's the problem. The clock won't run out if the Wright flap causes Obama to tank in both NC and Indiana on Tuesday. If that happens, the superdelegates will, in effect, reset the clock.
That's because they will want to see if Obama can get back on his stride in one of the few remaining contests. They will want to know whether the guy has an A-game left in him. They will not give the nomination to a guy just because he outscored the opponent in the first three quarters, especially not if the opponent is the one scoring all the points and playing at the top her game in the final quarter.
Comments (21)
I think as a general proposition that you have accurately described Sen. Clinton's possible path to victory. What she must essentially do, is to keep winning. IF that happens, somewhere along this path we move from "possible" to something more. Can she do that? I don't know. As I've said in here several times previously, what is not yet known is simply not yet known. Events will answer everything in their proper time.
May 1, 2008 9:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
Can Americans discuss anything without resorting to irrelevant sports analogies?
May 1, 2008 9:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
I doubt it. But it's okay if it's basketball. Or jai alai. I don't think there are enough jai alai references in political commentary. In fact, I'm not even sure what jai alai is, and I blame that entirely on the sad state of contemporary political reporting. Enough with the scandals! Enough with the "horserace"! Bring on the jai alai!
May 1, 2008 9:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
apperantly not. Since that is the mode of discourse I would argue that he is more like an NHL team with a 7 point lead than an NFL one. She needs to do more than score once.
May 1, 2008 9:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
Not only can he coast to the nomination, he must coast to the nomination. The dynamics of the race now dictate that Obama must work to restore party unity in preparation for the general election. Hillary is under no such constraints. She is free to slash and burn. Since she has no hope of securing the nomination, she has no options left except to either drop out or work to destroy Obama and the Party.
Obama's job is much different now than it was only a few weeks ago. He can't afford to attack Clinton and risk alienating her supporters. He's got to go easy on her if he wants any chance of winning them over once Hillary has finally conceded.
On that day, there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth, but there will also be great celebration.
May 1, 2008 9:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't think working to defeat Obama -- which she is definitely doing -- is the same as "working to destroy the party" -- which she is definitely not doing, at least not by her own lights. Look I assume she believes that Obama is a loser and that she has real chance of winning. Given that belief, she probably sees herself as working to SAVE the party.
May 1, 2008 9:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't believe it. She isn't stupid. She must know that she has no path to the nomination. What she is doing now is purely destructive. I don't care what her motivations are--the results are clear. She knows what will happen if the superdelegates overturn Obama's delegate lead. And she's well aware of her rising negatives, which make her unelectable in the general. She may mean well in her own mind, but she is working to divide the party and lose this for us in November. Nothing else. She can't win.
May 1, 2008 9:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
She sees herself as saving the party, Bush sees himself as a great leader, and I think I'm brilant. Our personal delusions are not relevant in the rality based community.
May 1, 2008 9:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Then came the interminable gap between Ohio and Pennsylvania. Obama spent and spent and spent. He saturated the airwaves in every corner of the state. But he still came up very short -- partly because of Wright, partly because of Bittergate, partly because of demography."
And partly because he started with a 25-point deficit. Make no mistake--Hillary didn't "win" in Pennsylvania. The state wasn't what mattered. The delegate count is what mattered. In order to make a dent in Obama's delegate lead, she needed to maintain her 25-point lead or even increase it. Instead, Obama closed the gap.
May 1, 2008 9:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
Check your facts. Obama won Texas.
May 1, 2008 9:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
Make it three touchdowns, and your analogy is more accurate. And in your final paragraph, you're just engaging in wishful thinking.
May 1, 2008 9:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm normally tolerant of other viewpoints, and I fully recognize the genuine need that Obama supporters have to get this thing over and done. I KNOW you thought it was in the bag a while back (I think I sort of thought that myself - I'm less certain, now).
But it is simply not true under the rules of the Democratic Party that Sen. Clinton has "no chance for the nomination", and I really think you need to quit saying that. IF (I repeat, IF) she continues to win primaries, at some point we move onto a plausible scenario by which Super Delegates MUST (at the very least) take a strong 2nd look. IF (I repeat, IF) she were to sweep all the way out, I think it is fair to say that Sen. Obama's candidacy would be seriously threatened.
Am I saying that will happen? I DON'T KNOW. None of us do. I'm saying (again) let this play out, and see where it goes.
May 1, 2008 10:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
It simply IS true that Senator Clinton has no chance to win the nomination. She can try to convince the superdelegates to override the Obama's delegate lead, but that's not winning--that's an insurrection.
Play with the numbers. Tell us how she wins:
http://www.slate.com/id/2185278/
May 1, 2008 10:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
She has about as much chance of convincing 2/3 of the superdelegates to overturn the primary results as George Bush has of becoming competent. It is not imposible, but it is so unlikely tha we do not need to consider it as part of the political calculous. She is doing herself grave political damage and showing just how deluded she is by continuing to campaign the way she has. Her only real chance is an Obmama implosion and by behaving the way she has she has made it less not more likely that Supers will turn to her in that event.
May 1, 2008 10:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
Her quest has become positively Huckabeean.
May 1, 2008 10:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
No it is not. Huckabee was nice after it was appearant that he could not win. He just hung arround incase McCain blew up. If she had done that I would respect her more than before this campaign. Her behavior has had the oposite effect though. She is less than I thought.
May 1, 2008 10:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
Putting "must" in capitals doesn't make it any more convincing. And you make it sound like there's some procedure for "taking a second look." There isn't. Of course the SDs are continually evaluating the political situation, and will continue to do so. So far, all the evidence is that the SDs will go for Obama: not a single defection to Clinton--which is a lot more than Clinton can say.
May 1, 2008 10:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
Not to put too fine a point on it, but:
(1)It is the DUTY of SD's to "override the delegate lead", if they think it's required. That's precisely what they were put there to be in place to do. That's HOW she wins, if she does. I won't take another monotonous trip thru the "numbers" - we all know what they say.
(2)If Sen. Clinton REALLY has no chance, what's all the fuss about?
May 1, 2008 10:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
(1) Sure. But it's not required merely because Clinton wins a few primaries at the end. It would have to be something major, like Obama getting indicted. (Note--Rev. Wright is not "major.")
(2) The fuss is that Clinton supporters make silly taunting remarks that people feel the need to refute.
May 1, 2008 10:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ah, sports analogies. Using these analogies reinforce terrifying (at least to me) cultural fallacies that undermine the American presidential election. Saying that the Democratic Party race for the nomination is like the NFL is childish. The NFL, and all professional sports, are GAMES. Not real and completely arbitrary. The distraction arm of the American empire leaves you empty and without a real soul. That is why you do not understand the gravity of this next presidential election. The circus show the media puts on for you everyday seeks to undermine the issues about the direction this country should be taking. Most people determine their vote based on the soap opera of a show that almost all media hypes. You are obviously one of those people!! Presidential elections are not a tv show, not an arbitrary sports match, but an important factor in your happiness for the next 4 years.
Obama has had the party nomination wrapped up for a month. This unproductive banter of the daily circus show only seeks to divide this country, and especially of the overwhelming anti-Bush majority. DIVIDE AND CONQUER. Do not be conquered America, stand up for a cause. That cause is your livelihood for the next decade.
May 1, 2008 10:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
You're right that this is not a game, but I think that most of us really DO understand that. Sports analogies are common American currency in all aspects of life. They're simple, and most people "get" them. They're a folksy, down-to-earth way to make serious points.
To keep this on a positive, uplifting plane, let me say that I think America remains the hope of the world, even with its' faults. I do NOT mean that in any jingoistic, bombastic way - I deeply dislike the grating way the Bush Administration has misused that promise. It is partly a lucky accident of history, and partly the efforts of us and our forefathers, that we have constructed something unique. The fundamental American idea has great staying power, and it will likley survive the abuse we sometimes put it to. I would certainly think we would all hope so.
May 1, 2008 11:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment