More Clinton good news
(Kos) Clinton is polling a healthy lead in Ohio and Pennsylvania. (My bet is Texas will show her with a lead, but smaller.)
And, come to find out, she won New Mexico. (It's only a difference of one delegate, but she needed a win.)
The other way, the national SEIU may soon endorse Obama.
(For whatever endorsements are worth, he got the UFCW, too.)
And, one superdelegate moves from Clinton to Obama, and another talks of it.
And, come to find out, she won New Mexico. (It's only a difference of one delegate, but she needed a win.)
The other way, the national SEIU may soon endorse Obama.
(For whatever endorsements are worth, he got the UFCW, too.)
And, one superdelegate moves from Clinton to Obama, and another talks of it.
posted by mikevotes at
4:29 PM
6 Comments:
Only people who actually voted for HRC and only those states she won...MATTER. 50%+1...ultimate triangulation...Her surrogates are saying OB only won Ill so far (of the states that matter)...Oh, and lets see what her favorite surrogate had to say recently....
"Of his wife's recent travails, [Bill Clinton] said, "the caucuses aren't good for her. They disproportionately favor upper-income voters who, who, don't really need a president but feel like they need a change."
aaaahhh, what? they don't need a president? Only the poor people (pay taxes) need a president? huh? I thought it was the "non-working" that didn't have a job had time for the caucuses? Please Uncle Bill talk to us who need a president some more and tell us why we need to go the "past" instead of the future...
ps - Great News for New Mexico!!! You Matter!!! Hooray! (yesterday you didn't)
By
Anonymous, at 6:30 PM
Anon -- I'm soooo over Bill Clinton. But for a significant portion (majority?) of Hillary's base he is THE reason to vote for her.
I've said it before: Hillary's base is looking for a parent figure; someone to take care of their problems. Bill's comments here make it clear that that's how the Clintons see the role of a president as well. This may be unfair but I get a vibe of patronization from the Clintons. Then again, I have a college education.
-----
To continue my snark... I find it interesting that passes as "good news" for Hillary is that she remains in the lead in states where she's always led.
OH, PA are industrial states where I expect her to do well. Still, with two and a half weeks to go is it possible that she's peaking? Is that enough time for the Obama camp to make their argument and sell their candidate? We'll see.
Also, it looks like Clinton is making a campaign push into WI. If she prevails in that state she'll go a long way to hush the media crowd that's been cheering Obama.
By
-epm, at 6:55 PM
"But for a significant portion (majority?) of Hillary's base he is THE reason to vote for her.
I've said it before: Hillary's base is looking for a parent figure; someone to take care of their problems. Bill's comments here make it clear that that's how the Clintons see the role of a president as well.""
hmmm...Interesting thought. I see her biggest base as middle-older white woman and latinos...but I agree that some HRC supporters want someone to just "run things and keep gas prices down" like her hubby did...wonder what some HRC supporters think?
Patronizing!!?? That would mean most of Clintons (both ma and pa) supporters are stuck in the past and simple-min...oh... nevermind...
Dayton Ohio Anon.
Bachelor of Science, HR Mgt. 1985
Wright State University, Dayton OH
By
Anonymous, at 7:30 PM
Doubt Hillary will do very well in Wisconsin... but OH PA and TX still look good for her. It's doubtful she can regain the pledged delegate lead, but quite possibly the overall delegate lead and (more importantly in the end) the popular vote lead. What do the superdelegates do if Obama has the pledged delegate lead and Hillary has the popular vote lead?
The problem is, there are so many different ways of defining the winner (when you factor in Michigan and/or Florida)... and only if they ALL point to the same candidate is there going to be an easy resolution.
By
Anonymous, at 7:31 PM
Anon, winning New Mexico doesn't really matter except that the Clinton camp has had so little. It's not a real delegate difference or anything, but with the news over the last few days.....
....
EPM, I'm not sure about "parent figure" but her rhetoric has now shifted blatantly to "Ask what your country can do for you."
Her new ads, I'm finally getting the wave emphasize very concrete things she's going to do, and an emphasis on " I try to help people."
And, yeah, holding onto anything is good news relative to the coverage she's seen in the last week.
....
TG, that's my sense on Wisconsin although I still really don't understand why. The only real explanation I can come up with is her campaign made a decision not to do enough in Wisconsin for some reason.
And, I wouldn't be too sure about Texas. My sense is that she's still on top, but for reasons I'll explain as it gets closer, my sense is that there are some things working against her. (Disclaimer, everyone who has talked about their own state on this blog has been generally wrong, so I probably am, too.)
I see much better ground for her in Ohio and Pa.
(I don't think the superdelegates will be counted when the settlement comes about. If she could claim popular vote, that would be enough to go to supers. however, if she loses elected delegates and popular, I think she's toast.)
And, we can argue about Florida, although I don't think it will be counted as is, but there's no way Michigan gets counted with Clinton and uncommitted. That's just not going to happen.
I don't think either is.
By
mikevotes, at 9:46 PM
Agreed, Florida and Michigan will not be seated as voted... but it gives Clinton an argument to make with the superdelegates, particularly where popular vote is concerned.
By
Anonymous, at 2:34 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home