Clinton's Empty Pennsylvania Victory
Forget Pennsylvania—the cruel joke for the last six weeks was that it mattered at all.
Hillary Clinton’s win in Pennsylvania is worth a two-week stay of political execution for the former First Lady—and nothing more. In victory, she can justifiably proceed to Indiana, which will vote on May 6, and try to cobble together enough new cash to keep her million-dollar-a-day machine churning until then (a task not made any easier by her 10-point victory tonight).
Should she win Indiana—a much iffier proposition than Pennsylvania ever was—then, once again, she’ll have license to press on, to West Virginia, Kentucky, Oregon and the final contests on June 3. Should she lose Indiana in two weeks, the pressure on her to withdraw—or at the very least to suspend—her candidacy will be immediate, enormous and intimate, courtesy of some of her most stalwart backers.
But even if she wins Indiana, wins West Virginia, wins Kentucky and wins Puerto Rico—the best remaining case scenario for Clinton—what then? She will still trail in pledged delegates (by nearly 150) and she will still lag hundreds of thousands of votes behind in the cumulative popular vote. And that means she will have no plausible claim to the allegiances of the 80 percent (or more) of the remaining uncommitted superdelegates that she would then need to overtake Obama and secure the nomination for herself.
We can be so certain of this because of the other states that will vote between now and June 3. North Carolinians, for instance, will head to the polls on May 6, the same day as Indiana. Clinton, strapped for cash and time and facing a tight do-or-die fight in Indiana, will be able to muster a token (at best) push in the Tar Heel State, where Obama has already opened a commanding double-digit lead. North Carolina is demographically ill-suited to Clinton. It is also about 75 percent as big as Pennsylvania, meaning that a solid Obama victory there will single-handedly undo—in terms of delegates and popular votes—the impact of Clinton’s win in Pennsylvania.
Likewise, Oregon, an Obama state if ever there was one, figures to cancel out Kentucky, a Clinton stronghold, when the two states head to the polls on March 20. And the South Dakota and Montana, the last two states on the calendar, should more than make up for the drubbing Obama stands to suffer in West Virginia, where the primary will be held on May 13. There just aren’t enough sources of votes for Clinton to catch Obama in the popular vote.
That means that Clinton, if she endures as a candidate through the June 3 primaries, will be left pleading with superdelegates to rally around her en masse. Without the popular vote or pledged delegate edge, she will have no moral claim to their support. All Clinton will be able to argue is that she is somehow more electable, even though polling data doesn’t support this. She will point to her success in “big states” during the primaries, a historically misleading general election indicator—and an argument that, if it carried significant weight with superdelegates, would have yielded more than the three superdelegate pick-ups that Clinton has netted since February 5.
There is not nearly enough—nor will there be nearly enough—for the Clintons to point to on June 3 to sway 80 percent of the uncommitted superdelegates to flock to her. Conventional wisdom posits that she wants to stick around in case Obama stumbles. But he has endured the worst his opponents could throw at him over the past two months.
The only office that Clinton can plausibly win by continuing to campaign is the vice-presidency. If he’s given even an inch of latitude in choosing a running-mate, you can rest assured that Obama will use it to pick Anyone But Hillary. But if Clinton were to win all of the remaining states in which she has a realistic chance of prevailing, she could very possibly deny Obama even that inch of latitude. With Clinton winning states right until the end of the primary process, Obama would be confronted with strong, possibly irresistible, pressure to offer her the vice-presidential slot on his ticket.
But the presidential nomination? Hillary Clinton is no closer to that than she was before a single Pennsylvanian stepped into a voting booth today. She is certainly free to continue with her campaign, and her supporters made it very clear today that they want her to do just that. It’s just a question of how long.
- Poll
- Obama (D)
- McCain(R)
- Spread
- RCP Average
- 45.8
- 41.6
- Obama +4.2
- Candidate
- Favorable
- Unfavorable
- Spread
- Obama
- 55.6
- 33.0
- +22.6
- McCain
- 52.6
- 34.3
- +18.3
In her eagerness to portray herself as a tough candidate, Mrs. Clinton loosely made claims that we could "obliterate Iran" if we wanted to. This coming from the woman who failed to recognize the growing threat of terrorism during her eight years in the White House and who sat idly by while the Clinton administration failed to retaliate against four terrorist attacks is not only a joke but extremely irresponsible. This does nothing but reinforce the notion that she will indeed do and/or say anything to win. Add to this her notion that we should extend our umbrella of support to Israel and include other nations in that region. Hillary is either "drinking the Kool-Aid" or completely lacks the judgement, leadership, experience and brains to be commander in chief. Be afraid America...be very afraid of this woman.
Maybe Bill Clinton is right.
Maybe there are Americans who don't need a president -- and I'm starting to think I'm one of them.
If Hillary steals the nomination, I'm going to sit out this election.
Maybe the Democratic Party needs to be obliterated before it substantively changes -- or another party takes its place.
Apparently, even though I went to school in New Haven, I'm not good enough for the comments section of the Times. So, here you go Observer, new favorite paper of record...
Love the circular firing line, Dems. As a Republican and fervent Obama supporter, if it's gonna be the Hill-Billy, I will not only vote McCain, I'll volunteer for his campaign. I'll lick the stamps, wash the toilets at HQ, go door-to-door in Harlem--whatever it takes--to keep Slick and his girls from the WH.
It would be nice to have a President I respect.
i love the observer but please!!! why don't we focus on this barry "little-hands" obama who after 7 weeks and 9 million dollars and bus tours and train stops FAILED BY DOUBLE DIGITS...AFTER THAT INANE SILLY SURLY PERFORMANCE AT THE DEBATE some of us are waking up and seeing this pussy for what he is: JIMMY CARTER 2.0 WITHOUT THE SKILLS...THAT'S FUCKING SCARY.
PS ALL YOU IDIOTS WHO SAY YOU'RE GOING TO VOTE FOR MCCAIN IF HILLARY GETS THE NOMINATION YOU FORGET THAT WAS OUR IDEA, OUR PLAN, IF YOUR WIMP BARRY GETS THE NOMINATION...KEEP THE DREAM ALIVE OBAMA 'FANS' BECAUSE EVEN IF HE GETS THE NOMINATION HE HAS NO CHANCE OF WINNING...POOR BARRY CAN'T EVEN WIN AGAINST A GIRL!!!
_____________________________
Theresa Boulart - Political Analyst
Re: (The Cruel Joke)
She is not... "THE ONE"
Everyone needs to keep in mind that a lot of the "support" Hillary is getting is from republicans who are only voting for her in the primaries, so they can vote against her in November. They will NEVER vote for her in November. And they are the margin she is "winning" by. In other words, she isn't "winning". Take away those voters and Obama is blowing her away.
this is becoming not only ridiculous but downright embarrassing. is hillary clinton actually willing to sacrifice the democratic party's unity for her own benefit? at this point, the writing is basically on the wall. there is no way she can mathematically or otherwise win her party's nomination. with that said, what's the point of this continued farcical display? enough is enough. after the results of may 6, if it is even more apparent than it is now, it will be time to more-than-politely ask (tell?) hillary clinton to step aside for the good of the party. she has run a pathetic, shameless and downright embarrassing campaign.
Rocket Science (2.50pm):
The Clintons never cared about the Democratic Party. Remember, they lost both houses of congress and the Dems' majority among governorships during their reign. And don't forget, Bill Clinton was elected only because Ross Perot was in the mix, not because of a groundswell among working-class Dems, who, as Hillary is quoted, could go "screw" themselves.
If Hillary is the best we can do, it's time to shut the party down and build something new. That's what the Republicans did after Goldwater, with the help of the emerging conservative movement. It took a generation, but they then led for a generation.
Obama, unfortunately, may be premature. But his coalition, young and better educated, may be rising and assert leadership a decade or so down the line.
Let's hope so -- and help them out.
She won by 8%, not 10.
The Clintons act like it's either victory or indictment, apparently waiting for the right moment to deliver a final numbing blitzkrieg against Obama. The continuing preemptive Rovian attacks scream totalitarianism. They seem so Neo Republicanized now.
It's as if the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy gobbled the DLC. Did Scaife tell Hillary not to worry?
http://www.light-to-dark.com/Freedom_of_Choice.html
With so much noise and smoke it's hard to get at what might be obvious. How would it feel to be a registered Democrat supporting, even championing, minds like Rove, Penn, Bill, and some of the naughtiest globalists comprising the extreme right?
-
The cast: Scaife, Murdoch, Rove, an ideobolus called McBillary, the dark figure of corruption, a mindless theobotic general, and Senator Obama.
Clinton behind in the popular vote?
Not REALLY. Shame on the media for ignoring the fact that Florida voters gave her 857,208 votes. ALL the candidates were on the ballot for that Primary... and that primary SHOULD be valid... here' why:
Obama supporters argue that the Florida results don't matter, because it was "early in the race," and "the Florida delegates won't be seated for breaking the rules and changing the date of their primary."
However, you can BET the farm that Florida Democrats are aware of the fact that the REPUBLICAN majority in the FL State Legislature presented a bill on Campaign Finance Reform, prior to the FL Democratic Primary. That bill, unethically, included a stipulation that the date of the Democratic Primary in FL be changed.
If a Democratic State Legislator had voted AGAINST this bill, in order to prevent the change in date of the Primary, he or she would have been on record as voting AGAINST Campaign Finance reform in FL. SO the bill passed, and the Democratic Party in FL was punished. The REPUBLICAN governor of Florida SIGNED that bill INTO LAW, and as a result, the FL delegates won't be seated at the convention. Howard Dean, the head of the DNC, has done nothing to correct this. It's a good thing he wasn't the presidential candidate in 2000, as his leadership skills, and moral fiber seem to be severely lacking.
Florida voters know all of this. They will remember that their votes didn't count. They won't vote for Obama (not the majority of them), because he and his campaign have done everything they can to PREVENT a re-vote, or a legitimaztion of the standing results. In addition, they won't vote for him because the demographics of the Democratic electorate in FL don't favor him. Florida voters will feel disenfranchised, by a candidate who claims to be the great uniter.
Suspicious yet? Could it be that the Republicans want to run against Obama, and always have, because they KNOW they can beat him? Could it be that the media has been so gentle with him because the media moguls (all Republicans) control the purse strings of their respective media?
At this point, if we consider JUST the popular vote, and in doing so, you include those people who voted for Clinton in FL and MI, (because they WILL count in the general election) no other candidate has garnered more votes.
More Americans have cast a vote for Hillary Clinton than have for Obama, or McCain.
As far as the case in Michigan goes, again, the Obama supporters will argue that in MI, no other candidate, besides Clinton was on the ballot, therefore people voted for Clinton because they couldn't vote for Obama. That argument, of course, is flawed.
Why would an Obama supporter go to the trouble of going to the polls to vote for Clinton, when he or she knew that not only would the vote not count, but also that he or she could vote "uncommitted?" His or her candidate of choice wasn't even ON the ballot, BUT the option to vote "uncommitted" was.
328,151 Americans voted for Clinton in the MI Primary. 237,762 voted uncommitted. 21,708 voted for Kucinich, 3,853 for Dodd, and 2,363 for Gravel. If you treat the results of this primary like an exit poll, you can safely bet that Clinton would have won MI with nearly the same results (if not better) had there been higher attendance at the polls. That's how CNN and MSNBC call these states for each candidate... when half of the vote is in, they bet that the trends will continue.
Obama supporters claim that these MI Democrats knew that their state party should not have changed the date of its primary. Now aside from the fact that I believe each state should be allowed to hold its primaries WHENEVER its electorate wants, does that make the wishes of the PEOPLE any less valid? It's called "DISENFRANCHISEMENT." It isn't pretty.
It is unfortunate that the Senator Obama, his campaign, and his supporters don't appear to be truly loyal to their party. They are loyal to Obama, and Obama alone. Otherwise, they would admit to the fact that the voters in FL and MI must be heard. They would support the idea that, especially in FL, the changing of dates for primaries, and the consequential punishments rendered by the DNC, are irrelevant to the will of the people.
Senator Obama has lost ALL of the most populated states in the union - all of which, in total, gave Clinton the clear advantage - all of which had more Democratic voters than Republican. He won IL - bug surprise. IL won't win him the general election. His string of wins were in states with much smaller populations, states that ALWAYS vote Republican in the general election. Obama argues that he won these because of the "Obamacans" (Republicans who support Obama). Does he READ right wing media? Is he kidding himself? If these "Obamacans" were truly interested in supporting him in the general election, there would be evidence of this in the larger, more populate states. There isn't. The fact is, Obama won these states because they held open primaries or caucuses. Both options are subject to corruption. Caucuses favor privileged college students (who can cut class and go support Obama for a few hours at a caucus), and elite corporate workers, some of whom make their own work hours, and can afford to take a work break to attend a Caucus. Most people cannot realistically attend a caucus and stay to the bitter end (sometimes SEVERAL hours after commencement). They simply can't afford to, or they must go home and cook for their kids. Open primaries, on the other hand are polluted by protest votes from Right Wing Republicans who hate Hillary Cinton (you know, for being a Populist and somewhat of a Socialist - look at her voting record... because, of course, Jesus would have been a hard-core capitalist).
It's been fixed all along. Obama has an un-ending supply of money, and I am sorry, but his claim that this money has been raised from the "ground up," is ludicrous. College students can't donate tens of millions to his campaign, no matter how much of their parents' money they steal to do so. People are limited to giving under $3000 to a candidate for a primary election. So where, now, has this $42 million come from. $42 million is the figure the Obama campaign loudly (and foolishly) trumpets as the latest tally of donated money (from ONE month alone). I see... from the ground up. Perhaps from the ground on which nuclear waste is dumped. Nuclear waste management companies have been large contributors to the Obama campaign, as have insurance companies, and oil companies. Yet, Obama lies about that on TV.
WAKE UP, America. Start thinking critically. Look at a candidate's voting record (both as a US Senator AND as a state senator).
Clinton is the candidate who can beat McCain (by a landslide too). She's the only one who can debate with him, and not look foolish. She is the only one with a grasp of the issues, and the ability to articulate what it is she plans to do about those issues. Obama can read a teleprompter pretty well... I guess that's all that matters in our country any more?
Hey Brian (12.50am),
I know plenty of Democrats in Michigan who, without Obama on the ledger, voted for a Republican to keep that party's primaries in a scramble. And they did it before Limbaugh's bloviating for Clinton (just proving liberals can be quicker than the cons).
Add that to the thousands of Obama supporter who simply stayed home (including those in African-American heavy Detroit and student-heavy Ann Arbor) and ask yourself: Michigan for Clinton? Don't count on it!
And as a contributer to the Democratic Party from way back, I'll shout bloody murder that full, fair revotes, with ALL original candidates represented, occur, should Michigan and Florida be thrown in the mix (against Hillary's original agreement, by the way).
Face it, the Clintons' numbers don't add up. If she steals the nomination, expect a massive walk out among party stalwarts (blacks, who gave Bill his plurality) and young, educated types (the party's growth sector).
But maybe it's time for the Democratic Party to die. (This said by a party stalwart of 35 years!)
I 'heart' Huckabee !