I still don't think she can win.....
I know this will anger most of the Clinton folks who are still caught in their post orgasmic smiles, but I still don't think she can win.
Last night is being framed as a good night for Clinton, but if she comes out roughly even on delegates, it wasn't enough.
The pledged delegate math is out there and pretty clear that she will not feasibly be able to overtake Obama in pledged delegates. In fact, it looks highly unlikely that she'll be able to even get inside of 50 which means that for Clinton to win, she will have to win through superdelegates.
The best argument I think Clinton has remaining, would be if she could find a way to claim a win in the popular vote.
Before last night, the popular vote stood at Obama 10,451,927, Clinton 9,540,370.
Last night, that gap closed by approximately 98,223 in Texas and 227,556 in Ohio, Rhode Island 32,862, and Obama won Vermont by 29,659
That leaves the popular vote gap at Obama +582,575.
That's not undoable, but it would have to involve some substantial wins from here forward, and even then, all it buys her is an argument to try to influence the superdelegates.
Then there's Florida and Michigan. I find it implausible that Florida and Michigan will be included as they stand now, so even if you factor them in, you can't use the delegate counts they have today. You have to estimate far closer numbers. (However, they could help alot in the popular vote argument.)
It comes down to this. Any scenario where Clinton wins has to go to through the superdelegates.
Now, you may not agree with this, but I find the scenarios for Clinton to win through superdelegates highly implausible when run up against the potential damage a contested convention would have for the Dems 2008 general election chances.
I don't believe the desire of a majority of the superdelegates to have Clinton as a nominee outweighs their desire to not have a fractious convention that would damage the general election candidate.
(You have to figure those superdelegates that want Clinton to win that strongly are already on board.)
The only superdelegate scenario I see working for Clinton is if they can so damage Obama that he is perceived as unelectable.
But before we get there, I would think the pressure on Clinton for going so negative would tip the supers to him. (Plus, the convention would still be chaos.)
But what do I know? I'm just some bozo with a keyboard.
Feel free to counterargue in the comments.
Last night is being framed as a good night for Clinton, but if she comes out roughly even on delegates, it wasn't enough.
The pledged delegate math is out there and pretty clear that she will not feasibly be able to overtake Obama in pledged delegates. In fact, it looks highly unlikely that she'll be able to even get inside of 50 which means that for Clinton to win, she will have to win through superdelegates.
The best argument I think Clinton has remaining, would be if she could find a way to claim a win in the popular vote.
Before last night, the popular vote stood at Obama 10,451,927, Clinton 9,540,370.
Last night, that gap closed by approximately 98,223 in Texas and 227,556 in Ohio, Rhode Island 32,862, and Obama won Vermont by 29,659
That leaves the popular vote gap at Obama +582,575.
That's not undoable, but it would have to involve some substantial wins from here forward, and even then, all it buys her is an argument to try to influence the superdelegates.
Then there's Florida and Michigan. I find it implausible that Florida and Michigan will be included as they stand now, so even if you factor them in, you can't use the delegate counts they have today. You have to estimate far closer numbers. (However, they could help alot in the popular vote argument.)
It comes down to this. Any scenario where Clinton wins has to go to through the superdelegates.
Now, you may not agree with this, but I find the scenarios for Clinton to win through superdelegates highly implausible when run up against the potential damage a contested convention would have for the Dems 2008 general election chances.
I don't believe the desire of a majority of the superdelegates to have Clinton as a nominee outweighs their desire to not have a fractious convention that would damage the general election candidate.
(You have to figure those superdelegates that want Clinton to win that strongly are already on board.)
The only superdelegate scenario I see working for Clinton is if they can so damage Obama that he is perceived as unelectable.
But before we get there, I would think the pressure on Clinton for going so negative would tip the supers to him. (Plus, the convention would still be chaos.)
But what do I know? I'm just some bozo with a keyboard.
Feel free to counterargue in the comments.
posted by mikevotes at
7:49 AM
17 Comments:
I'm not angered but I do have to wonder: are you experiencing a post-coital slump?? (sorry but I couldn't help sinking to the level of your comment)
Your analysis of the numbers seems fair but I have to wonder if the numbers were reversed would you be calling for Obama to step down? Wouldn't you agree that these numbers are very close?
I have always thought that the use of superdelegates to determine the outcome would be perceived as unfair. If the popular vote is very close then don't you think that this could work against Obama - why is it only wrong for them to vote for Hillary?
By
Ptelea, at 9:03 AM
First, the orgasmic thing was because last night must have felt unbelievable if you were pulling for Clinton, and you must be bouncing around this morning whistling.
I probably would be calling for him to step back, because I see the damage to Obama (or even Clinton) that seven more weeks of an increasingly dirty campaign will do.
Remember, this is only team selection. This isn't the ball game.
And, yes, the numbers are close, but the same reason the numbers are close, the proportional allocation, is also the same reason Clinton can't get over the top, you know?
Last, I think the popular vote argument would be very powerful if she can claim it.
And, it isn't wrong for superdelegates to vote for Clinton.
I just have trouble finding the circumstances under which I see that happening.
By
mikevotes, at 9:17 AM
This comment has been removed by the author.
By
-epm, at 10:04 AM
Once again we have Clinton winning a state by a slim margin where only a week before it was supposed to be a blow out, and the media are blown away by Hillary's strength. "Never bet against a Clinton," the meme goes in todays headlines. The delegate gap is closed by a matter of inches, yet the headlines would have you believe Obama was left in the dust by some political dynamo.
I'll say one thing for Hillary and her campaign, they are masters -- MASTERS -- at media manipulation. Team Obama better get their game on.
So the dirty kitchen sink and playing to the tender strains of the woman-as-victim have worked. In fact they're the only things that've worked.
Does Obama have to take the gloves off now? Can he afford to continue to play Mr. Nice Guy while lies, innuendo and fear-mongering eat away at his message?
At some point this has got to be put to bed. For me -- for my visceral, emotional lust -- I need to see Obama as Mr. Bad-Ass. I need to see him command an unfriendly crowd (the press?). I need to see that he's not gonna take shit no more... Mr. Nice Guy is one thing, but, dude, sometimes it just doesn't pay to bring a knife to a gun fight.
I'm interested to see who the camps position themselves in the coming days.
Will WY, and more importantly, MS, get headlines? If Obama wins both, do the media still consider Hillary the comeback monarch? Or will they see OH,TX as a blip... or at least in a more sober context?
Will the clog of negativity that came from the Clinton camp start to stink up the joint in a buyers remorse kind of way? Will the Supers meet in a shadowy undisclosed location on the waterfront to plan their king- queen-making strategy?
My head is spinning. Must... get... coffee...
By
-epm, at 10:46 AM
But can Obama take the gloves off?
He's hemmed himself in with the "new kind of politics" campaign rhetoric.
Interesting that you, as a devout Obama supporter, think Obama needs "man up."
And my guess is that Wy and Miss will get headlines, but will be covered as "expected to go to Obama." (I know.)
By
mikevotes, at 10:52 AM
Excuse me -epm:
"Will the clog of negativity that came from the Clinton camp start to stink up the joint in a buyers remorse kind of way?"
Do you not smell your own post???
By
Ptelea, at 11:52 AM
It's still a longshot for Clinton, but the important thing from her point of view is that she has halted Obama's momentum, which seemed unstoppable after Wisconsin.
She's now ahead in the popular vote, counting Florida and Michigan (according to RealClear.) That won't get her the delegates, but it's a powerful argument for a re-vote in those two states.
If she can continue to hold her own, and win decisively in PA, she will still be behind in the pledged delegate count, but she'll argue that with the gap so small, the superdelegates should consider these things:
She's arguably the leader in popular votes.
She's inarguably the leader in votes of actual Democrats.
She's done better in battleground states (Ohio, Michigan, Florida, New Mexico, Nevada...)
She's done better in actual elections. There are no caucuses in November.
Obama is not the Messiah (this will work especially well if she forces him to go negative.)
Again, it's a longshot, and while those arguments may seem implausible, it also seemed implausible a week ago that we'd even be having this discussion today. The Clintons are, after all, the king and queen of spin.
By
Anonymous, at 12:20 PM
TG, You can't count Florida and Michigan as they now stand. You just can't. That will not be taken seriously except by already diehard Clinton supporters and they're already in the camp.
"Votes of democrats" I see as a wash. Yes, she's leading among Dem votes, but new voters in the primaries should also be given value because you can't win the presidency on democrats alone.
I think the "big state" argument would be really good for her if they'd frame it differently. Instead of emphasizing that they're winning "big states" they should emphasize that they're winning the media (not face to face) primaries because that's what the general election is. One giant media campaign.
And I would throw out the primaries versus caucus argument, nobody outside her campaign and supporters buys that as a viable argument until the Clinton campaign can viably explain why they can't organize more than one caucus win.
Technically speaking, I think the popular vote argument is probably her best lever but you gotta claim it without Florida and Michigan.
But in the end, my general senseof superdelegates (at this point) is that their starting position is to reaffirm the pledged delegate total. That seems to be the neutral position, so you have to goad them into the other one.
Doable, but not without superdelegates.
Stepping outside your own bias, do you think those arguments are enough for them to reverse/overturn a pledged delegate total?
(Alot matters on what that final gap looks like, 20 maybe, 100 probably not.)
To me, that's the question because the safe thing is to agree with the voted total. You're asking them into a position more complicated to explain.
By
mikevotes, at 1:47 PM
"Interesting that you, as a devout Obama supporter, think Obama needs "man up.""
I heard an Obama supporter say today, "I'm all for Hope. But I want Hope with a backbone."
I think this sums it up for me. I'm not saying Obama needs to get nasty (and using the phrase bad ass was too much hyperbole), but he needs to show some righteous indignation and smack down below-the-belt attacks in a much more effective, and I think aggressive, manner. Let's get real for a minute; it's gonna start lookin' like he's gettin' beat up by a girl, fer cryin' out loud. So yeah, in a very coarse, but unfortunately necessary American way, he's going to have to "man up" when he's attacked.
It'll help to shore up people's confidence that he has the necessary "backbone" when answering that 3AM call. It's all about perception.
By
-epm, at 2:15 PM
If the general election were restricted to registered Democrats, then I hope Hillary gets the nomination. Otherwise....
By
-epm, at 2:18 PM
I'm not saying it's wrong, just kinda interesting that the answer is "man up."
Especially when compared to all the charges of "playing victim" that have been heaped on Clinton.
And, for me, I'd prefer to see him rise above it. Some pushback, but that's not his strength. They have to go back a step to the soaring rhetoric.
My version is he got sucked into a soundbyte/media campaign that the Clinton camp out executed them on. Trading charges, trading comments, that's not his strength.
He needs to get those soaring speeches with clamoring crowds back on the news.
If he gets sucked into her game, he's gonna get knocked around.
By
mikevotes, at 2:32 PM
Overall, objectively, I rate her odds as being in the mid to high single digits... somewhere between 4-1 and 9-1. A mid-to-longshot, but horses in this range win races
every day.
And again, I don't see Florida and Michigan being counted as they stand. I see the race (just possibly) getting close enough that a re-vote becomes very hard to argue against.
And with the superdelegates... it's
really case by case, and quite complex. For some, the overall vote is most important; for some, it's their state or district vote; others (e.g. Kennedy and Kerry) can do whatever they damn well please.
By
Anonymous, at 3:02 PM
Interesting take. I'm not saying you're wrong, but it's obvious that a significant demographic is more interested in "strength" as defined as something a little coarser than "soaring speeches." Obama needs to tap this demographic, and to do that he needs to show a certain "toughness" in the face of adversity.
I'm not saying he has to attack Hillary Clinton by name, but he has to attack the tactics in which her campaign engages with a righteous indignation. The "attack" against the Clinton campaign is one of association with the tactic. It's implicit.
The Clinton campaign has used gender as a third rail; a shield behind which they could hurl all sorts of whining complaints, mocking attacks, and discredited personal aspersion, with near immunity. It was framed that to challenge Hillary was to "gang up" on, or "pick" on the girl. They played it very effectively.
In the end, you may be right... You most probably are. But I can't shake the notion that, as Hillary mockingly says, "pretty speeches" just aren't enough to get enough rural, blue collar, poor, less educated, insecure Americans to side with Obama. That list isn't an insult, by the way. It's just the summary of the exit polls.
I think I was right when I said Hillary's people are looking for someone to fix things for them; Obama's people are looking for someone to empower them. I really believe it's broadly speaking, the parent-partner dynamic.
Sorry. Another rambling comment...
By
-epm, at 3:03 PM
TG, that's one thing I really agree with. A revote in Florida and Michigan (A caucus) looks much more likely today, and my hunch, just guessing, is that Clinton would do better in both states.
Gaining delegates? I don't know how many, but I would shade her to win both states.
The superdelegates also get tricky around the non-elected officials.
....
EPM, I'll buy that.
My main point was that he's not going to beat the Clinton camp at nasty. I feel like he got sucked into it in those last few days and it cost him.
But he will have to deal with the smoke around the Canadian/NAFTA thing and Rezco. Nothing dead solid against him on either one, but the smell of both of them stuck to him.
I just tend to believe he has to go up to get going. That's where his campaign's energy has been.
I think he can be strongest in that forum. Think about his post Iowa, post NH, post SC speeches.
The real hitch is, how do you get that cut into TV news's little 10 second slot?
By
mikevotes, at 3:46 PM
"The real hitch is, how do you get that cut into TV news's little 10 second slot?"
Ahh... I was thinking the same thing as you were talking about his strengh being rousing, empowering speeches. Without a doubt his strong suit, but how to bottle it in sustainable sound bites? That where I think an edgier message can work... it leaves a lingering doubt about your opponent.
I like that phrase I quoted earlier, "Hope with a backbone." It implies a certain strength of conviction regarding Hope. Not a nastiness, but a defense of principle...
Anyway, I think I've beaten this horse dead. We'll start seeing a sharper Obama in the days ahead, I'm sure. I think he can work both angles... each in it's appropriate venue. From rallying speeches in civic centers to sharply examining his opponent (and defending himself) in press conferences.
I'm done for the day... off to a "board meeting."
By
-epm, at 4:09 PM
some thoughts...
- "the only way HRC can win is with superd's? Wrong. The only way she can win is to STEAL it. Plain and simple.
- If shoe on other foot would we be expecting OB to drop out...ahhh, I'm willing to bet my house on the HRC-machine would be SCREAMING it at the top of their lungs 24/7...along with a few msm but mostly they are just wanting a horserace (dogwhistle: ratings).
- Ob camp really needs to get a surrogate msm mouthpiece. Someone everyday pounding the math, pounding the tax-returns, pounding the vote totals, pounding the fact that she was supposed to win TX and OH by over 15 points just a few weeks ago.
-I suspect a little msm hrc-hangover by Monday. they may turn to critisizing her a bit more.
-If they count Mich expect OB to sue...he wasn't even on the freaking ballot!!!
-Ob needs to press hard for a star quality surrogate that will get the msm to ask the questions (tax return/what forgn rel.experience/and pound on the clinton-baggage. OB needs to get that back in the news. Maybe pull out some soundbites from the 90's healthcare fiasco, etc...
Ob could def benefit from a little visible edginess/tough guy attitude for a LITTLE while. If he goes too angry bill's wife with somehow use it to scare all the racists in PA to think he;s a gang leader or something...she does evil work when it comes to race baiting. I'm really just so dissapointed she was able to turn the votes in the last 4 days by going so negative and then not being called on it by one talking head. I guess it was premature on my part to think/hope our society had evolved out of 5th-grade playground mentality when it comes to politics...
By
Anonymous, at 5:38 PM
Well, I think you have to somehow convince them you're going to give a "major speech." Bush does it all the time (or at least he used to back when he was relevant.) Clinton has pulled this twice, once on the economy and once defense.
It only gets you the cable networks, and only for awhile, but it buys you the viewership of all the talking heads and that shapes their message.
And, we'll see.
...
Anon, I'm seeing a Clinton media snapback coming, too. Alot of the heads today were talking about "working the refs" which means they know they got played to some degree and see it in the results. They wouldn't admit that, but that's a feeling I've been getting all say.
And, although I don't agree with the way you frame it, Obama does have to watch out for "angry black man" as it could knock him back the same way Clinton has to watch "shrill." It's not fair, but it is what it is.
By
mikevotes, at 9:16 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home