Reader Posts
« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
Why
Two more Primaries and the same questions about Mr. Obama exist. He had a real chance to seal the deal on this Nomination last night in Indiana but instead dropped the race to Hillary Clinton. How can we go into the fall with a Candidate that certainly can't stop the competition? He started with a lead in Indiana and admittedly declared the Indiana was the "tie-breaker". He had a lead in a state that borders his own Illinois. A state that should have been in his back pocket given the vast amount of resources available to him. The questions about his electability will not go away. No amount of spinning at TPM or Huffington or in the MSM will change this fact.
Obviously, this tie breaker falls for Sen. Clinton. I am sure with the result in NC that there will be calls for her to quit. However, the real question should be to the Party Fathers. How can we go into an election with this weak of a Candidate?
Comments (46)
CONCERN TROLL!!!
May 7, 2008 9:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
Come on over here so I can shove that guitar where the sun doesn't shine.
May 7, 2008 11:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
Oooooooooooooooo.
Louisville's got a temper!
Better go back McSame!
May 7, 2008 5:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ah, you called it.
But I have some concern, too. My concern is that the Clinton Family Players made a combined 100 or so stumps in North Carolina, and got tons of free press for each one. Clinton had the "momentum" coming out of PA, while Obama had nothing but attacks from two opponents and a full-on assault from the media (or perhaps I should say "vetting"). Polls showed Clinton coming within a couple points of Obama in NC, and showed her consistently at least 5 points ahead in IN.
Yesterday, Pollster's average gave Clinton a +4.4 spread in IN; RealClearPolitic's average gave her +5.0. By contrast, Obama was predicted to win NC by +7.3 (Pollster) and +8 (RealClearPolitics). So, Obama did about twice as well as predicted in NC, winning by +14.8%. He did even better in IN., losing by a mere -1.5%, less than half of the projected spread.
So I'm concerned about what the Clinton campaign got for all the work, time, and money they put in to contesting these states - especially North Carolina - so vigorously. I mean, Bill Clinton is not exactly the healthiest guy, and he's been stumping like crazy since March. Since they can't seem to close the deal with voters, I'm worried about the personal impact this campaign might be having on them. To say nothing of the party. Or me. It's taking quite a toll on me. I'm concerned about that, too.
May 7, 2008 11:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
Shhhh...don't post facts, Lousiville has no idea what to do with them.
May 7, 2008 11:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well, Clinton was expected to win in Indiana. Looking back over the polls, she was polling well ahead of him in the vast majority of the polls, with the exception of a few.
There's a lot of ground to be made up. But your question kind of answers itself. If you believe him to be an incredibly weak candidate, what does it say about the other candidate who is losing to him?
And - McCain is a pretty weak candidate himself, if we ever start focusing on him and pointing out that he is maverick-no-more.
May 7, 2008 10:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
She wasn't expected to win Indiana. Where did that come from?
May 7, 2008 11:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
I know that you believe that she came from behind because she told you so last night; but that doesn't make it true.
Here is the Pollster site showing Hillary with a lead virtually all of the polls in Indiana since March!
http://www.pollster.com/08-IN-Dem-Pres-Primary.php
Sorry to crash your party with a little reality.
May 7, 2008 11:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry, I was just reading the polls printed daily here at TPM. Maybe they were wrong.
May 7, 2008 11:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
If that was true, then you'd know that Clinton was in the lead in IN since the get-go. No matter what she said last night, she was never the underdog in Indiana, save for Zogby and no one's paying attention to Zogby.
May 7, 2008 11:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
Oh ok...no one pays attention to Zogby but they do pay attention to which other one so that I can be sure next time?
May 7, 2008 11:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
I big complaint with the media and TPM posting individual poll results is that they vary so much
and really it's the trend lines that matter more than the actual numbers. But on the plus side TPM did turn me on to Pollster.com, they just take all of the polls and show the average scores and trend them out. It typically shows a accurate picture of where things are going and if a state is going to be close or not.
I just don't let the politico's tell you how they are polling they all use the polls they like and ignore the ones they don't.
May 7, 2008 12:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
What are our options? A candidate "this weak", the weaker one who is losing to that candidate, or someone even weaker.
Once Clinton gets behind Obama (either after the convention or sooner) we will see a large jump in his performance against McCain. Most of those Clinton supporters who say they'll vote for McCain over Obama will realize the idiocy in such a position (as most Obama supporters who said similar things would have realized if it came to that).
May 7, 2008 10:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
My arguement remains the same Ben. Its about who is electable. He has proven time and again. He isn't. If he can't cobble together enough votes in Northern Indiana to beat her how can you expect him to do that in Ohio or Florida or Michigan or Penn in the fall? He can't. Therefore, he is the weaker Candidate.
May 7, 2008 11:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
You seem to be forgetting that she's lost more contests than he has.
May 7, 2008 11:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
Just to go straight to your argument—I think he is electable. However, if he's not, then she's proven herself to be even less electable, since she's losing to him.
May 7, 2008 11:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
Scatches head. How do you figure that? Cause she can't win MS? or Alabama?
May 7, 2008 11:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
Or Virginia or Maryland or Georgia or …
Last time I checked, he has won nearly twice as many states as she has. You seem very selective in your facts. Also, and this might shock you, he has won more of the pledged delegates and more of the popular vote (even counting MI and FL) than she has.
Other than an arbitrary "only (certain) large states matter" metric, in what way is she not losing?
May 7, 2008 12:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
And help me out with Tie Breaker thing Ben. I know I heard everyone shout it from the roofs...and now it didn't matter? Changing the rules as he has gone along seems to become a common theme for Obama.
May 7, 2008 11:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
I never shouted it or even mentioned it. The tie-breaker reference was referring to just these three states. A battle, if you will, in the larger war. Obama never suggested that he need to "break the tie" in order to win the race. If I'm wrong, show me how.
May 7, 2008 12:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama has won 32 states AND some territories. He has more popular votes and more pledged delegates than Clinton. His message has been consistent since last spring.
She started off the race with a huge financial advantage, name recognition, 165 superdelegates and the media in her back pocket. She had the support of all Democratic factions across the board.
In Nov. and Dec. in most of these states Hillary was polling in the mid to low 80s agains Obama.
I'm sorry...who is the weaker candidate?
May 7, 2008 11:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
If he is weak isn't Hillary weaker? She has less votes, less states, less delegates, and less money.
At one point or another, Hillary had a lead in every contest. She managed to lose over 30 those contests desite national name recognition and the support of the party. She is tough and she is a fighter, and she is definitely capable of being president, this just isn't her time.
May 7, 2008 10:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
No, look at the electoral map vs. where he has won. You will notice a slight problem.
May 7, 2008 11:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
You have a problem with Obama expanding the playing the field into "traditional" Republican strongholds? That upsets you that he may be putting southern and western states in play? I know you're not delusional enough to believe that Obama couldn't carry California or any of the other Democratic strongholds.
May 7, 2008 11:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
Chris -
Is Obama really the weaker candidate? He has been running against Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton the biggest brand name in political history. I think one would ask how come she didn't put him away?
Why when back when all this began, when she was the presumptive nominee did she fail to close the deal. Why did the largest supposed most savvy political machine not get it done?
May 7, 2008 10:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
In my mind and most others she has gotten it done. She has won Primaries in the Democratic and swing states that matter. Yes, Montana/WY/Utah don't matter. She has shown and still shows remarkable strength vs. McCain in Ohio/Florida/PA/....swing states that have to be won in the GE. But, as I have seen most Obama supporters don't care about winning in the fall.
May 7, 2008 11:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
Whereas he has made swing states out of states that previously have been Republican—e.g., Virginia.
May 7, 2008 12:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Guess what?
Your opinion doesn't matter either.
LOL
May 7, 2008 5:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hahahhhahaa....Chris your attempt to induce a serious discussion (question mark on Obama?) after last night results is too funny.
Bro...Hillary is over and like it or leave last night more than ever before made it clear to one and all Obama is the nominee.
Now go pick another candidate to support- coz Hillary is dead and Obama is the last man standing, metaphorically ofcourse
May 7, 2008 10:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
Chris,
Loved you in highlander!
Here's the thing, "there can be only one" and it aint hillary, that is how the game works
May 7, 2008 10:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
DF, is that you? You know how I love me a good snark-- And this one was pitch-perfect. you got through two paragraphs, straight-faced, and you didn't even have to drop the old "why can't he close the deal?" line (still my favorite misleading campaign '08 pundit cliche-- even better than "threw ___ under the bus"). Nice work.
May 7, 2008 10:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
Tie Breaker?
I know that Obama said this, but the race has never been a tie. Ever.
5.3% of Hillary's Indana votes came from Republicans. And if you think Republicans would vote for Hillary in November...
Never mind then.
May 7, 2008 10:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yep, I will post this again:
Here's a handy dandy little info on Operation Chaos:
In Indiana, 1 in 8 Clinton voters say they will vote for McCain in the fall even if Clinton wins the nomination (as opposed to 1 in 22 Obama voters)
In North Carolina, 1 in 6 Clinton voters say they will vote for McCain in the fall even if Clinton wins the nomination (as opposed to 1 in 31 Obama voters).
Source: http://www.jedreport.com/2008/05/mccain-supporte.html
What does that tell you about her electability? Tells me she has a snowball's chance in hell.
May 7, 2008 10:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
Carol reprinting the Jed report? Please.....at least go for something at least a little objective. Suppose you condense for me where and how they recieved their data. Second, do you honestly believe exit polls?
May 7, 2008 11:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hold on, he said it was a tie breaker and he lost....but it wasn't a tie breaker? Are you serious?
May 7, 2008 11:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
The way Democratic primaries are set up, Clinton did not win, she tied. I can see her as Obama takes the oath of office, shaking her head and trying to explain how he didn't really win. Maybe Chelsea will be the first woman president.
May 7, 2008 10:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
p.s. I'm sure the writer of this article meant"WHY????"
May 7, 2008 10:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you Chris for so sucinctly reprinting the dead-ender talking points rolled out last night by Lany "Baghdad Bob" Davis last night on CNN.
Why did Obama not "close the deal" in Indiana last night? Overlooking the glaring double standard of that argument that ignores Clintons 14 point loss on NC, there are a number of reasons that have nothing to do with what will happen 6 months from now.
1. Thousands, maybe even tens of thousands, of Limbaugh mischief makers cast votes for Hillary that they will never cast in November. Almost every county she won in will be red in the general election.
2. In the latest, most desperate, attempt to refashion herself as the ultimate populist and voice of the working class Hillary rolled out her "gas tax holiday" that appealed to the poorest and least informed of the electorate. Obviously, a summer tax holiday will not be an issue in November.
3. Wall-to-wall media coverage of Rev. Wright was still fresh in the mind of many voters. As the trends already show, this will be an issue to less and less people as the days go by and Obama (as he clearly laid out in his speech last night)is able to reassert his message of unity.
4. The argument that the nail in the coffin should be Obama's own statement from weeks ago that IN would be a tie-breaker is patently absurd. That's pretty standard stump rhetoric that is used by all politicians - certainly including Clinton - to pump up supporters and make sure they turn out. How many times did Clinton claim she would win Iowa? If that's all you guys have left then please spare us all.
"There are no American's in Baghdad, all is fine, we will win a great victory...."
May 7, 2008 10:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
So, he lied again when he said it was a tie-breaker? He didn't mean it? What else did he lie about?
May 7, 2008 11:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
The original story was this:
On Meet the Press:
I think calling this a lie is a bit of a stretch. It's lumped in there with Senator Clinton calling NC a game-changer. It's trailspeak. And something they can now both use to bash each other over the head with once or twice. Not something I really see as necessary to get riled up about.
May 7, 2008 3:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Uh, here's Hillary's new theme song. Lyrics say it all.
http://www.imeem.com/people/6ZLAvc/music/xy5-SBoD/alexander_oneal_fake/
May 7, 2008 10:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
And here's our next president's (Obama's) theme song:
http://www.imeem.com/batman17/music/ddYV4rHj/jadakiss_jadakiss_the_champ_is_here_instrumental/
May 7, 2008 10:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
May 7, 2008 11:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
Only if you also consider "We're going to ride this all the way to the White House" a lie. A lie is knowing something to be so and then saying it is not so. Unless you are sugesting that Obama is an oracle with certain knowledge of the future, an incorrect prediction made weeks in advance is not a lie - way to think like Fox News though.
May 7, 2008 11:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
That last was meant as a response to Louisville1975
May 7, 2008 11:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
What a MORON.
Please, everyone, not all Ohio residents are this stupid.
Waiting for the equally Moronic: "Shhh Bucky, LSU and Florida; my team sux but I'm just a bitter hillshit stuck in Medina Ohio."
May 7, 2008 5:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment