Playing Clinton off stage
Thus far, all of the focus, myself included, has been on what the Clinton campaign does the day after Ohio and Texas, but what does the Obama campaign do on Mar. 5 if today is close or a split?
Does he have a bunch of endorsements in his pocket waiting to be brought out to urge an end to the campaign? Will there be a rush of "neutrals" like Bill Richardson urging an end for the good of the party?
I keep getting the awards show image of Hillary Clinton talking at the mike while the music from the band keeps getting louder and louder and louder.
Later: Tom Brokaw reports that someone close to the Obama campaign told him they have 50 superdelegates waiting to come forward.
(And I think I should again point out how successful the Clinton camp has been at the expectations game.
Coming out of Wisconsin the conventional wisdom was that she had to win both Texas and Ohio by a wide delegate margins in order to continue, but, by today, barely winning Ohio is perceived as enough.
Clinton got a huge favor to her spin with this ABC/WaPo poll where 2/3 of Dems say she should stay in if she wins only Ohio.)
Have to wait and see how the votes shake out. (For tonight, how many speeches did the speechwriters have to prepare for each?)
Does he have a bunch of endorsements in his pocket waiting to be brought out to urge an end to the campaign? Will there be a rush of "neutrals" like Bill Richardson urging an end for the good of the party?
I keep getting the awards show image of Hillary Clinton talking at the mike while the music from the band keeps getting louder and louder and louder.
Later: Tom Brokaw reports that someone close to the Obama campaign told him they have 50 superdelegates waiting to come forward.
(And I think I should again point out how successful the Clinton camp has been at the expectations game.
Coming out of Wisconsin the conventional wisdom was that she had to win both Texas and Ohio by a wide delegate margins in order to continue, but, by today, barely winning Ohio is perceived as enough.
Clinton got a huge favor to her spin with this ABC/WaPo poll where 2/3 of Dems say she should stay in if she wins only Ohio.)
Have to wait and see how the votes shake out. (For tonight, how many speeches did the speechwriters have to prepare for each?)
posted by mikevotes at
8:27 AM
12 Comments:
At this point the Clinton campaign has played so disingenuously, so class-less (NAFTA-Canadian thing, 3am call, shame on you, noting more than a speech in 2002) that I'll treat whatever votes she gets as being under a cloud. Her fear-filled campaign of character assassination will move some people away from Obama.
I know I get emotional, but at this point if Hillary is the nominee I'll vote for her in November for one reason only: Supreme Court appointments. But I think if she's the nominee, she'll lose the general. The media loves their good 'ol boy "Maverick" McCain. Hillary's got nothing but old guard Dems and frustrated women. And frankly, she's too prickly/whiny with the media and they don't like her.
By
-epm, at 11:32 AM
Are we at the point where we're looking for the superdelegates to move en mass in order to put this thing to bed? I think we're seeing some public frustration among superdelegates with Clinton's campaign tactics against a fellow Dem. There's aggressive campaigning and then there's destructive campaigning.
By
-epm, at 11:37 AM
Yeah, but it's not like you're biased or anything.
And, I also think if Clinton becomes the nominee (A BIG IF) alot will depend on when it happens. If it happens by June, you'll watch the convention and creep to her side once it becomes McCain vs. Dems. If it happens at the convention then, yeah, there will still be bad blood.
And, I think we see a big push starting tomorrow unless he wins both Texas and Ohio. (The requirement may include winning substantially.)
Right now, her campaign is predicated on getting superdelegates to overturn the pledged delegates, and we haven't seen any movement towards that position in a month.
The only way she wins is to attack Obama, but attacking Obama costs her votes in the only way she can win.
By
mikevotes, at 1:18 PM
Could any other candidate cause this much trouble within the party?
By
mikevotes, at 1:18 PM
"Yeah, but it's not like you're biased or anything."
LOL. Well, at least I can recognize when I'm being emotional. Isn't that the first step in recovery?
"Could any other candidate cause this much trouble within the party?"
Yeah. I was thinking along these lines during Hillary's latest I'm-being-repressed speech. Anyone other than Bill Clinton's martyr of a spouse would have been shown the exit a long time ago. By the party, by the press, by the people. She's pushing all the emotional buttons and laying all the land mines very effectively.
What exactly is her experience? I think we're looking at it right now. And it doesn't have a damn thing to do with effective foreign affairs or successes in promoting progressive issues. It's in bare knuckles, no holds bared, in the gutter, politics.
By
-epm, at 2:24 PM
Man, you're just crazy today.
Has the election politics (media treatment, expectations game) improved because Harold Ickes came in?
Is he the change?
By
mikevotes, at 4:03 PM
A lot has been written about the Clintons' sense of entitlement, much of it no doubt true... but I feel like we're now seeing a major show of the same sentiment from Obama supporters. There's just no reason Hillary should withdraw when she still has a fighting chance to win. And all the dire predictions of her Hitler-in-the-bunker exit are fanciful at best.
I'm also amused by the argument that she's the one dividing the party, when it's almost exclusively Obama partisans who say they won't vote for the nominee if it isn't their guy. "I'm more fanatical than you are" may be a good argument in a soccer riot, but not so much in a democratic process. They don't seem to realize that Clinton supporters may find Obama just as
obnoxious as they find Clinton.
By
Anonymous, at 4:22 PM
Briefly, what is her "fighting chance to win?"
Unless you include the superdelegates overturning the pledged delegates, there's really no way unless she picks up big delegates in Texas and Ohio which no one is predicting. (Figuring a Florida and Michigan redo.)
I'm assuming you saw the Alter piece today on delegate count.
http://www.newsweek.com/id/118240/output/print
Or any of the Chuck Todd math.
I know you don't want to hear it, but there isn't a realistic viable way to win with the way things look now. Do you expect her to win Pa 70/30?
Now, let me say that I don't necessarily think she should drop out, but if she stays in, she has to go soft. If she can't win, she can't attack him, and then there's no point in staying in, you know?
And, again, either side wins, either side loses, Dems will coalesce so long as the decision is made before the convention.
A contested convention would be a disaster, and there's no way a Clinton emerging from that convention could reunify the country after effectively overturning the pledged delegates.
!!!!!!
And, I know you don't want to hear this, but she's had her chance, and that chance was to substantially move the delegate count in the delegate rich states of Texas and Ohio.
If she does pick up a bunch of delegates, then hell yeah, stay in, but that doesn't look likely too happen.
Sorry.
By
mikevotes, at 4:35 PM
Granted, there is no way for her to win more elected delegates than Obama. But there is also no way for him to reach 2025. Ergo, it's going to be decided by the superdelegates.
The assumption (and Obama has done well to nurture this) has been that the superdelegates MUST vote for the person with the most elected delegates. And if he maintains a commanding lead, that probably holds true. If his lead shrinks (i.e. if the momentum changes), and/or she takes the lead in the popular vote, that dynamic could change.
Too, Michigan and/or Florida could then come back into play. I think Clinton will come back to that sooner or later, if she's not blown out tonight.
Or, Obama could make more mistakes along the lines of the NAFTA/Canada screw-up.
Is any of this LIKELY? Not especially. But it's possible. I guess it depends on what your definition of a fighting chance is.
As I recall, Obama was a longshot not too many months ago.
By
Anonymous, at 8:02 PM
All true.
My perception is that the superdelegates will not overturn. That may be very wrong, but that's my hunch.
I also believe this will not get to the convention because of the potential consequences in the general election.
Those are my assumptions, and they may be wrong, but I'm thinking in terms of the general election, and I refuse to believe that a majority of superdelegates would allow the party to effectively commit suicide.
If she were to pick up a substantial delegate gain tonight, I could see the situation changing.
(And, here's a spin you're going to hate. I would expect in the coming days to hear people spin that by beating Obama with no chance of winning the pledged delegates, Clinton is harming the party.
That will be surrogates removed from the campaign, but brace yourself because I think it's coming.)
By
mikevotes, at 9:37 PM
But define "overturn". Obama has his definition. Count on it, Hillary will have hers.
By
Anonymous, at 2:38 AM
I'm not saying the Clinton campaign won't try.
I'm just telling you what I'm estimating in the future.
I know you want your side to win, but I find the scenarios highly implausible when run up against the potential damage a contested convention would do to the Dems '08 chances.
I don't believe the desire of a majority of the superdelegates to have Clinton win outweighs their desire to not have a fractious convention that would damage the general election candidate.
I know that's not how you feel, but that's my sense of it.
The passionate Clinton supers (not all the ones she has) are already on board.
By
mikevotes, at 7:29 AM
Post a Comment
<< Home