Wyoming Goes With Obama, Not With Ohio
O.K., it’s only Wyoming. But Barack Obama’s commanding victory there over Hillary Clinton is significant for what it portends.
Clinton’s chances of winning the Democratic nomination depend on catching Obama in either the pledged-delegate count or the cumulative popular vote tally (or both) during the primary season. This would give her a moral claim to the loyalties of the undecided superdelegates who will ultimately put Clinton or Obama over the top.
But this is easier said than done, because 100-delegate gaps are not easily erased in closely contested one-on-one races, nor are 700,000-vote deficits. So when she won her surprise victories last Tuesday, Clinton’s imperative became clear: She would need to parlay her upsets into sustained momentum and rack up big wins in the remaining 12 primaries and caucuses.
With today’s Wyoming results, she’s now 0-for-1.
Unlike previous caucus states (besides Iowa and Nevada), the Clintons invested heavily in Wyoming, a tacit acknowledgement that ceding small states like Kansas and Idaho and Nebraska to Obama last month had actually cost them dearly. This time, there were five paid Clinton staffers on the ground, and many more volunteers. Bill and Chelsea made personal appearances, and the candidate herself blitzed the state on caucus eve. A radio ad was aired, as well. And then there was the “momentum” from Ohio and Texas: Surely it would sway some Wyoming Democrats to take a second look at the former first lady, right?
Actually, none of it mattered much at all. With almost all precincts reporting, Clinton was on course to secure about 40 percent, a slight improvement from her performance in other nearby caucus states (she received 32 percent in Colorado, for instance), but not nearly enough.
This says a lot about where the Democratic race is heading—and why Clinton’s “revival” last Tuesday needs to be taken with a grain of salt.
In three days, the state of Mississippi will vote, a primary that Obama is favored to win, in part because of the state’s large black population. (Jesse Jackson won Mississippi with 45 percent in the 1988 primary.) As she did in Wyoming, Clinton has stepped up her efforts in the state. But while her push might help her marginally (a poll released on Friday showed Obama ahead 46-40 percent), today’s Wyoming result suggests that Clinton’s sudden “momentum” is not significantly undermining Obama’s existing support. Clinton can not catch Obama by June if she does not start upsetting him in states where he is favored.
Moreover, the Wyoming verdict—especially if it is replicated in Mississippi on Tuesday—should dispel the notion that a Clinton win in Pennsylvania next month will somehow transform the race in her favor. After all, if her Ohio and Texas wins don’t help her measurably in Wyoming and Mississippi, why should a Pennsylvania victory have any different impact on the May primaries in which Obama is favored?
Understandably, much is being made of Pennsylvania, the largest individual state left to vote. But a total of 412 delegates will be awarded in May and June—254 more than are at stake in Pennsylvania. And in those May and June contests, Obama is, on paper, in better position to win in states accounting for 204 delegates (North Carolina, Oregon, Montana, South Dakota, plus Guam), while Clinton is the paper favorite in West Virginia, Kentucky and Puerto Rico, representing a combined 136 delegates. Indiana, with 72 delegates, is probably a toss-up.
If those May and June state break as they should on paper, then Obama will slightly increase his edge in delegates and popular votes—erasing (and then some) whatever gains in both categories that Clinton would make with even a robust Pennsylvania victory. And that would ensure that Obama will end the primary season with a delegate advantage near 100 and a popular-vote edge somewhere near the current 700,000 mark. Even do-over Clinton wins in Florida (where she could very well win by a double-digit margin) and Michigan (where the race would probably be close) wouldn’t bring Clinton even close to surpassing Obama in either delegates or votes.
Her only chance relies on winning Obama states—and winning them big. But for all her pushing, and with all of the good press she received this week, she was lucky to crack 40 percent in Wyoming.
If Obama keeps winning where he should win and Clinton keeps winning where she should win, then Obama would come out of primary season with a whimper rather than a bang. But he’d most certainly come out the nominee.
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Go Obama! .. We need to stop Hillary and the Clintons before it is too late. .. Just think how awful it would be if Chelsea runs for office in the future and we have both Mommy & Daddy being surrogates for her! .. Ergh! .. Ugh!
Is anybody really fooled by or listening to these Dem Obama supporters that hate the Clintons? At what point did that happen, that the Dems started hating the Clintons with the same fervor as the Republicans? Maybe I just wasn't paying attention to it, but I don't remember that in the 2004 elections, so I have to wonder, what really is behind it now? I'm sure the answers in this blog will be the usual hate mongering and conspiracy theories, but those that stood by the Clintons in years past, are they part of this group and why? They didn't hold the things mentioned in all the blogs I see now attacking the Clintons of their past 4 years ago, so what changed in the last 4 years? I can understand picking Mr. Obama over Mrs. Clinton since they're both Dems, but the hate based votes are the ones I'm questioning? So keeping the past out of it, what is all the hate about now?
Sorry forgot to mention another part of the question I have above.
And at what point did the liberal media such as CNN and MSNBC start buying into the Republican parties arguments about the Clintons and why?
Obama supporters are zombies and Kool-aid drinkers. They are in for the shock of their life should the empty suit win the presidency.
It's so funny seeing renatam and his spilt personality on here posting against each other, though their messages of put down's and hate both convolute any message they try and post. All I see when I see the name and scroll past them up is HATE HATE HATE HATE HATE HATE HATE HATE HATE HATE HATE HATE HATE HATE HATE HATE
Hillary is a fraud who is trying to pass herself off as an “experienced” leader and administrator. She makes outlandish claims of foreign policy experience. Lord Trimble recently exposed her claim of ‘having been deeply involved in the Irish peace process’ as a “wee bit silly.” Lord Trimble, in customary British décor, stopped just short of calling her an outright liar. Hillary Clinton has been called the ‘most secretive politician’ of this generation. Hillary has made a career of not answering questions and refusing to produce requested documents. She has refused to release her Income Tax Returns, which all other presidential candidates have done. She obviously does not want to reveal the sources of her and Bill Clinton’s foreign income. Hillary has refused to release her White House schedules and records from when she was our ‘First Lady” even though she makes claims to having been involved in policy making at that time. When asked by the American press why she will not provide these documents, as all other presidential candidates do, she does not give a direct answer but, instead, gives a run-around answer which our ineffective press allows her to get away with. If Hillary Clinton should get elected president --- be prepared for an extremely devious, deceitful, secretive, selfish administration in Washington, D.C.
Can you feel the hate. But thoughtfully neglects to give a candidate to vote for. More Clinton HATE HATE HATE HATE with no other message. Hmmmm, curious.
My feeling is that McCain will beat the Democrats like a drum come November. Hillary is a wench and Obama is a puke.
Either way the Republicans will take advantage of their suicide.
lol
I know, it's hard to come up with stuff when it can't be hate all the time, makes it no fun for you.
BTW the link listed about Hillary step aside is an email grabber BUYER BEWARE.
There is an interesting item regarding the differences between Hillary and Obama and it's the pew report. Part of it states that: A quarter of Democrats (25%) who back Clinton for the nomination say they would favor McCain in a general election test against Obama. The "defection" rate among Obama's supporters if Clinton wins the nomination is far lower; just 10% say they would vote for McCain in November, while 86% say they would back Clinton.
You can read it for yourselves at...
http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?PageID=1254
Where it also breaks down the groups with this issue and the groups that vote for each candidate. Saw it on CNN the other night and it's interesting reading, and could be one of the notions why it would be inappropriate at this point for Hillary to step down especially when it's obvious by the latest election that there are a substantial number of people that want Hillary to continue.
So to sum up Hillary is a "Monster" who will cause the end of civilaization as well know it the reason's are A) She won't drop out of the race. B) She enhanced her role in the Irish peace process (though just for the sake of arguement well say she was there and at least talked to people involved about more than tea and fashion but didn't help close the deal) C) Hasn't disclosed the papers of her White House time as First Lady D) Hasn't released her tax's yet (though I haven't filed mine either so it's hard for me to judge her on this one)....Yeah monster. hmmmm I don't get it.
There is a story at MSNBC that seems to raise the question how effective Obama will be in Washington.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23540579/
Shut up, Byron.
Byron, Obama is the nominee and he will not pick Her Royal Highness Hillary Clinton to be his running mate. Take it to the bank.
Do you realize the Obama is a Socialist? Do you realize that the Democratic Party is really the Socialist Party?
DEMS want to stop free speech (Every try and have a conservative speaker at a college? He is shouted down, electricity turned off etc.)
You DEMS want the same government that you hate so much (I have yet to hear a DEM say anything good about President Bush) to run our health care system and SS system.
DEMS want corporations to be taxed higher. If you understood anything about Corporations you would realize that they should not be taxed AT ALL. Do you wonder why corporations are leaving the US to do business? Corporate tax is double taxation.
The first indication is out. Obama 1 McCain 0.
see the link below. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/03/09/obama-wins-proxy-war-vers_n_906...
McCain is up for a surprise fom Obama in November.
WHY HILLARY WILL NOT RELEASE HER TAX RETURN.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=fzzJspLOxHE
How about a "Gore & Obama" ticket? That should be a Win-Win for the Democrats. Gore has low negatives and Obama is bringing in the money and the masses.
So to sum up the arguement now is, a little more hate for the Dems,Obama the winner without any reason why, shut up byron, and oh yeah the tax returns...still don't get it.
Those that read the Huff post and you tube for your news, I'm sorry but I'll have to wait for it to become actual news in mainstream media or my local news. I don't get my news from places where it's removed weekly.
Still curious to my origianl post:
Is anybody really fooled by or listening to these Dem Obama supporters that hate the Clintons? At what point did that happen, that the Dems started hating the Clintons with the same fervor as the Republicans? Maybe I just wasn't paying attention to it, but I don't remember that in the 2004 elections, so I have to wonder, what really is behind it now? I'm sure the answers in this blog will be the usual hate mongering and conspiracy theories, but those that stood by the Clintons in years past, are they part of this group and why? They didn't hold the things mentioned in all the blogs I see now attacking the Clintons of their past 4 years ago, so what changed in the last 4 years? I can understand picking Mr. Obama over Mrs. Clinton since they're both Dems, but the hate based votes are the ones I'm questioning? So keeping the past out of it, what is all the hate about now?
byron - i don't hate the clintons. i think many, many people are waking up to the realities of their 'take no prisoners' approach that may not have been so offensive when they were running against republicans. now that they are using the same tactics on a young, promising candidate that is building huge reservoirs of new voters - not so cool. that's my theory. to risk forever being known as the campaign that wrenched the nomination away from obama in such an under-handed and distasteful way is apparently a risk the clintons are wholeheartedly assuming. they assume too much if they believe that the democratic party will continue to forgive them.
samantha powers was referring to the clinton's lack of response on rwanda. the 'monster' quote has been taken out of context - big surprise - nevertheless, hillary's dubious statements on 60 minutes are bordering on monsterdom. lining up arguments for mccain is also monstrous.
I support Obama. I don't hate Clinton, just agree with him more.
But I have noticed that more Clinton supporters "attack" Obama as opposed to cheering on their own candidate. And like Obama himself, his supporters seem to be backing him as opposed to thinking she stinks. It's very subtle, something you might not understand Byron, but it's there.
There is no experience to be president no matter what they say. And if there was, then we should only elect people that have served in the Congress for 30 years. You know, the same ones, we never nominate because we don't really want experience but "something new/different".
JFK - change
Reagan - change
Bill Clinton - change
Bush - change
If it was really based on experience none of these men would have been president.
In Obama I see hope that things could be better. Do I know that for sure, no. But I know McCain will be more of the same, even if he remembers the person he was in 2000. And Hillary has so many enemies on the other side that she won't get anything she wants done.
Obama is the best choice out of the 3. Out of the 2 if you're a Democrat. And if you're an American that wants his or her country back to the way it was, I think he's the only choice for that to possible.
All I need is someone with the capacity for critical thinking. That's the only skill needed to be in charge. He was against the war, wants to talk to our enemies and wants to work with Republicans on issues. He's the only one that is 3 of 3 on those important issues.
Vita,
A valid point, and I can say for myself I feel that "old politics" distract from the issues. But to base a vote on that instead of the real issues and qualifications of the candidates is where my problem begins. Rather than focusing on the issues, (which I find a lack of information based on facts in Mr. Obama's stump speeches and appearances;concerns which have been voiced thoughout the campaign), I believe to many this is a main concern.
An easily resolved solution from Mr. Obama, (much less exciting to most though since they don't involve uplifting speeches) would be for him to elaborate on the issues instead of now, (which I am dismayed at why it's condoned by Obama supporters and encouraged by mainstream media), Mr. Obama and his supporters find it convenient to employ a negative campaign of their own.
Matt K
Just a quick response.
I appreciate your opinion but I do question some of your conclusions and have opinions of my own.
Your first statement about Clinton's supporters attacks of Obama, doesn't really address the type of negative attacks I've seen from self declared Obama supporters in blogs here and elsewhere as well in Mr. Obama's campaign staff for the last year. This really does go both ways. I also do appreciate that many Obama supporters back their candidate rather than think they only believe Hillary "stinks", but that's already assumed and really was not what I stated. I asked about those that proclaim their dislike of the Clintons that are supposed Obama supporters with the same zeal using the Republican arguments as their basis of opinion, and why now? I'm sorry you neglected to ascertain that from my statements, but thought it was fairly obvious.
I also believe that most of the Presidents you mention showed some experience (not sure which Bush you are referring to) JFK showing his ability as a leader in combat during WW2, Regan and Clinton both had been Governors which requires leadership skills beyond what I think a Senators experience alone might offer, so in my opinion I find it not rational to believe there wasn't some level of ability to measure them by. I also prefer to go more into what the two candidates bring rather than past ones.
I also find problems with your statement " Hillary has so many enemies on the other side that she won't get anything she wants done" since I'm not a firm believer that inexperience might be a better alternative to controversy from Republicans since I don't believe Dems elect people based on what Republicans think.
Your closing comment I do respect your view but since you did mention your 3 requirements I'd ask you to elaborate coming to you conclusions, especially when Mr. Obama was asked in 2004 if he had the info in the Intelligence Report on Iraq in 2002 when he gave his speech, if he would have voted for the war and said he may well have, taken into account when asked this question he was a Senator and had access to the report, as well as remembering there were 77 yes and 23 no vote to go to war, so to hold Hillary responsible may mean more to you than me. I'm also reminded that he's voted the same as Hillary has (whether you believe that is good or not is up to you) which doesn't show me a consistent opinion of being against the war. So I tend to discard that and still would like to hear more about current solutions rather than the past. I would also like to see more info on where Mr. Obama has had substantial effectiveness in reaching over the isle especially when I read the article I listed above in MSNBC. As far as talking to our enemies, Mr. Obama views on that have seemed to drift closer to what Hillary has stated (which is not surprising to me since they do have very similar views on things), especially with current events in Cuba, and I keep in mind old politics will still be alive and well in Washington so I'm concerned who will deal with that in an Obama While House. You may not be concerned with this, that is your right and I respect that, would love to hear more of your facts and opinions on it.
As to why I think Hillary would be a better candidate, I do think that she has shown herself for a fighter who has devoted her life with Bill to fight for the middle class, poor, a working economy, a plan to solve the current war instead of how we got there, and have proven track records together and own their own, as well as views on gay rights, health care, universal heath care, to name a few. I do however wish that more of the tedious facts of this on both side would arise from the campaigns rather than politics or speeches.
Also would like to point out that I believe the rational that somehow Mr. Obama is connected with radical Islamic fundamentalist or radical leftist movements absurd. Again, simply looking into his record clearly shows no connection and for anyone to make those inferences is the same hateful contemptuous absurdity as the hateful comments I see of Mrs. Clinton and are also related to my original question...It's refreshing to see less of them in this thread, but discouraging in the amount of them in others.