Mr. Davis"s claim to indisputable "Facts" (capital "F") is a nice preemptive strike to disguise spins like a dervish. Unfortunately, clearing the air of his factual errors takes more time than for him to fart them out in the first place.
Take Fact 1. The Pennsylvania election webpage shows 1,245,911 Clinton votes to 1,037,953 for Obama (difference: 207,958 out of 2,283,864). Converting these numbers to usable percentages requires approximation through rounding, introduing error because the rounded numbers are less precise. (Who wants to work with seven-digit numbers?) Error can also arise from the rounding method: here, rounding the candidates" individual vote percentages first, then subtracting, yields a less ACCURATE answer than subtracting the ACTUAL vote totals FIRST, then calculating the percentage difference. Don"t believe it? Do the math. Recognizing this distinction is standard test material for my sixth-graders. Mr. Laney fails the test; the accurate number at the precision he uses is 9%, not 10%. More accurate (and more precise) would be 9.1%.
I would care less about Laney"s error if he hadn"t laid claim to indisputable Fact, and if candidate Clinton hadn"t proclaimed, "I won that double-digit victory that everybody on TV said I had to win..." I care more about the pledged delegate impact, which currently looks to be...nine delegates. I challenge Mr. Laney to post one Top Ten Indisputable Fact about this interesting topic.
The Top Ten List of Undisputed Facts Showing Barack Obama's Weakness in the General Election Against John McCain
Let's forget about the spin on all sides and not use any adjectives to modify the following 10 Facts that should not be in dispute:
1. Hillary Clinton won by 10%, 220,000 votes, despite after most of the polls in the last several weeks on RealClearPolitics, including its RCP all-poll average, showed her ahead by single digits and dropping. The exit polls showed her winning by +5. (It's easy to forget that she won if you listen to the Obama spinners last night and today. Believe it or not, Pennsylvania's Rep. Murphy, a freshman congressman who supported Barack Obama, actually said last night on Larry King that Senator Obama did so well in losing to Senator Clinton yesterday that he has a "wind at his back." I am not kidding.
2. Senator Obama tried hard to win the state, campaigned intensely throughout the state for most of the last six weeks -- and was trying to win, not just lose a narrow margin.
3. He spent $11 million on media -- about three times more than Senator Clinton.
4. Most of his ads were personal negative attack ads against Senator Clinton, meaning attacks on her character and integrity.
5. There were no personal attack ads run by Hillary Clinton in Pennsylvania.
6. Barack Obama hasn't won a single major industrial state that historically constitute the key "battleground" states for both parties, i.e., the states in the last three or four presidential elections have switched back and forth between the Democratic and Republican presidential candidates.
7. The reason that he lost can be found in the demographic data: He lost -- and Senator Clinton won -- by substantial margins blue collar and middle class white voters earning under $50,000 a year, senior citizens, rural voters, Hispanic voters, and women voters -- all core constituencies in the Democratic base that must be won if a Democrat is to win the White House. For example, yesterday in Pennsylvania she won Roman Catholics by 32 percent (66034), union households by 18 percent (59-41), and those most concerned about the economy by 16 points (58-42). Only 60 percent of Democratic Catholic voters said they would vote for Mr. Obama in a general election.
8. Barack Obama has lost these same demographic groups in Massachusetts, Ohio, Texas, California and New Jersey and other major states that Senator Clinton won. There is a factual pattern of his weakness among these demographic groups in virtually every primary state that cannot be disputed.
9. Barack Obama is currently in a dead heat with John McCain, according to a recent respected poll, in Massachusetts (actually, the results were McCain 46% and Clinton 44%), while Senator Clinton leads in Massachusetts by 15%. The last time a Democrat did not win Massachusetts by a substantial margin was 1980, when Ronald Reagan defeated Jimmy Carter. Even in the historic landslide election of Richard Nixon in 1972, when he won 49 states, only Massachusetts supported Senator McGovern. Senator Obama currently runs considerably behind Senator McCain in Florida and Ohio, while Senator Clinton is ahead in both of those key battleground states.
10. Current polls show Senator Clinton runs ahead of John McCain nationally or dead even -- and Senator Obama runs only dead even. For example, in the most recent USA Today national general election poll, Senator Clinton leads Senator McCain by +6; Senator Obama leads by less than the margin of error, +2.
Those are the facts. To all Super Delegates: you decide who is riskier as a general election candidate. The candidate whose negatives, driven by the right-wing hate machine in the 1990s in particular, are all out there and already taken into account. Or a candidate who is still virtually unknown to most of the electorate, with Republicans clearly looking forward to filling in the blanks with the facts about his record of which many general election voters still are not aware.
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Lanny, look at it this way - most of the people who have decided to support Obama are actually doing it to get away from you. And of course the other Clintonite Republican imitators like Carvelle, Terry McCauliffe, Harold Ford and regretably even the late stages of Bill Clinton. You embarrass, anger and infuriate us that you seem to so desparately follow the paradym of the now failed Karl Rove playbook, racism and all. All you guys need is the Supreme Court in your pocket (too late GOP got there first) and a 70% disapproval rating by Americans For a Happy, Healthy, Honorable, Economically Sound and Secure Constitutional United States.
It is comical the way Clinton supporters try to spin what really happened. Clinton was blowing out Obama in Penn by 20 points. He spent a lot of money to get his message out to the people. He had to do it. Not to mention, him spending so much money made Hillary spend more than she wanted to, leaving her in a tight money situation. And in doing so, Obama made up 10 points.
Obama is up big in NC, lets see Hillary cut the lead like Obama has in all of the states that are made for Hillary; like Ohio and Penn. She can't do it. The more people see and hear Obama, the more they like him. The more people see and hear Hillary, the more they don't trust her. The problem for Obama is that he is relatively unknown compared to the Clinton name, so he starts off with a big disadvantage. But as we all know... he has faired prett-y prett-y prett-y good.
I've been pondering this argument about Obama's weakness in the general election, and frankly, it's crap. My analysis of primary election data shows the following UNDISPUTED FACTS:
--- In the 28 states that held both Republican and Democratic primaries (not caucuses), nearly twice as many Dems as Reps voted (27,371,217 vs. 14,617,247) and 26 of these primaries occurred on or BEFORE McCain clinched his nomination on March 4.
--- Dems outvoted Reps in 25 of the 28 primaries (exceptions: Alaska, Arizona, and Utah)
--- Over all 28 states, Obama received twice as many votes as McCain (13,502,540 vs. 6,797,249) and nearly as many votes as ALL THE REPUBLICAN CANDIDATES COMBINED (Obama: 13,502,540 vs. ALL REPS 14,617,247)
--- Adding together the votes from the so-called "big states" of Illinois, NY, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Texas, and California, Obama received MORE TOTAL VOTES than ALL REPUBLICAN CANDIDATES COMBINED
....................................... OBAMA ...... ALL REP CANDIDATES
ILLINOIS*........................1,301,954........... 885,009
NEW YORK*..................... 697,914........... 602,747
OHIO.................................. 979,025........ 1,010,864
PENNSYLVANIA* ........ .1,045,910.......... 807,122
TEXAS*........................... 1,358,785......... 1,320,653
CALIFORNIA...................1,890,026......... 2,514,047
........................ TOTAL .... 7,273,614......... 7,140,442
* Individual "big states" (4 of 6) in which Obama received more votes than ALL REP CANDIDATES COMBINED.
Conclusion: While there may be good reasons (or not) to choose Clinton over Obama, Clinton's so-called "electability"/Obama's "weakness" is not one of them. Based on my analysis of the numbers of actual voters who turned out, it's clear that Obama CAN'T LOSE unless Clinton somehow implodes the party completely.
Data Source: CNN Election Central. Numbers subject to changes as
You make a very good point which has largely been overlooked in the media. The Dem turnout advantage way well be the real story of this election cycle, and there's no denying that Barack Obama deserves much of the credit for that.
That is a good point but it seems the primary turnout will be less as Obama or Clinton supporters switch sides or just stay home when their cadidate does not win. In addition do not underestimate the Republican ability to crank out the vote. The primaries may have been lackluster due to the poor selection of candidates, but voters can be fired up easily for a general election against Clinton or Obama.
...continued
For example, in comparative head-to-heads, Obama v McCain and Hillary v McCain, we find that Obama has a significant advantage in state after state, and that the gap widens among independents:
North Carolina: Obama and McCain are tied, Clinton is down 11; among independents, it's Obama up 8, Clinton down 16
Wisconsin: Obama up 5, Clinton tied w/McCain; among independents, it's Obama up 17, Clinton up 2
Minnesota: Obama up 14, Clinton up 5; among independents, it's Obama up 9, Clinton down 14
Colorado: Obama up 3, Clinton down 14; among independents, it's Obama up 9, Clinton down 13
Iowa: Obama up 7, Clinton down 6; among independents, it's Obama up 9, Clinton down 31
And in Pennsylvania: Clinton up 9, Obama up 8; among independents, it's Obama down 1, Clinton down 19
These are but a few examples. You get the point. Barack will get a tremendous number of votes that Hillary simply will not. He is therefore FAR AND AWAY more electable. Super-delegates, are you paying attention???
It is not just the case that Dem turnout this year is huge relative to GOP turnout. Dem turnout this year is huge relative to Dem turnout in previous election cycles. It is also the case that Dem turnout has been augmented significantly by crossover voters in the open primaries.
There are two factors driving the enormous Dem turnout disparity: (1) profound and broad-based dissatisfaction with the last seven years and the direction for the future, and (2) a dynamic and inspiring candidate who is perceived as offering a way out of the mess we're in. There is a great mass of voters who want change. They want it big and they want it now, and they see Barack as their catalyst for change.
Hillary has her ardent supporters, there's no doubt about that, but there's also no doubt that she cannot pull in nearly the kind of crossover/independent vote that Barack will. A glance at the latest polling will confirm this.
to be continued...
You also make a good point. The Republicans are very much hoping, wishing, and dreaming that Hillary Clinton is the nominee for that very purpose: to fire up their voters. But regardless, either Clinton or Obama will swamp the GOP in November. It's just a matter of who Democrats really want as president.
Lanny Davis side job is being a comedian.
The thing that gets me is that Davis is talking about a fellow Democrat -- the guy who is likely to be our nominee -- in a way that makes him seem weak. This is all the more reason to end this sooner than later.
The bottom line is if Clinton were such a good candidate, she would have never blown the HUGE lead she had for almost all of 2007 and she'd be winning right now. But there is a reason that she will not be able to catch Obama in delegates or popular vote; because less people want her to be our president.
Until Lanny and co. can tell us a logical scenario in which Hillary can win, this is all just a bunch of hot air.
Just read Lanny Davis's Bio plus his above "List of Facts".
I wouldn't trust his judgement to tell me what time it was.....
Is it any wonder that Washington is so screwed up with clowns like him doling out wisdom ?
A high school teacher would throw out your logic.
1.Hillary Clinton won by 9.4 or 9.2, depending on the results counted. Correctly rounded, it is 9%. A win for sure, but no
double digit.
2. Duh. Yes, of course he tried. That is what he was there for. And he came from an almost
25% lower polling just a few short weeks ago. So a single digit loss was a relative success.
3. Because he had the 11 mil to spend getting his message out to a populace that could not
pronounce his name four weeks ago. Your girl went in PA 10 mil in the hole
4. What character and integrity is there to attack? Your girl is a proud master of fear and slurs.
5. Yes there were and you know it.
6. Hmmm, he as won the key state of Virginia. Illinois, Texas,
7. You mean she wins with the uneducated -- exactly why her methods of control, fear and going with the familiar and known -- no matter how abusive --work.
8. And what does it say about your girl's weakness among the more educated and informed populace?
9. You are pulling at strings in the air
10. Current polls with McCain will be relegated to the dustbin in a few short months. They have as much relevance as the polls of six months ago.
These are the facts.
Lanny is so full if "it", his eyes are brown.
Lanny needs to go back and read the rules of the DNC.
He who has the most delegates wins.
End of story!
Larry,
In choosing a candidate, Super Delegates must be satisfied their endorsement,
1. Benefits their constituents through concessions and/or political appointment
2. Backs a winner (retains its value)
3. Validates the electorate
Although Clinton is ahead by other measures, she trails in pledged delegates.
Compared to Obama, this is her weakest bargaining position.
Super Delegates can take-it-or-leave-it.
In honest fashion, Hillary must deliver more of the moon.
The headline should be changed from "Undisputed" to "Undisputed in the delusional Fantasies of the Clinton Camp"
We do not need another "Emperor with no Clothes"
The above argument illustrates why Hillary should not be the choice of the Super Delegates:
The total dishonesty on the part of her campaign and some of her supporters
will make it very difficult to support her not just in the GE but in a possible presidency.
It is just insulting.
For Pete' sake. This is becoming embarrassing.
If Obama is such a bloody loser then why is he winning? He has so far won the popular vote, pledged delegates, number of states (which I argue is infinitely more important than "big states"), and will soon enough be ahead in super-delegates, if the trend continues.
Add to that his extraordinary--yes, extraordinary--support base of Americans funding a whopping 42% of his campaign (to Clinton's 20%) with individual donations of less than $200. I don't see an "elitist" here, I see a people's choice.
But the Clintonmachine will continue to shift the bar, to change the measure of success, skewing every defeat as a victory, even in the face of laughably unfavorable odds, and yet succeeding only in delaying what is patently inevitable, while doing incalculable damage to the party.
Enough.
Lanny,
You are stumbling through "elephants in the room".
The first elephant represents states that have high numbers of uneducated voters accepting of the lies of Bosnia; failing to look at campaign economics that show deficits unlike anything other than the current federal budget. These states favor Hillary.
The second elephant represents race. Hillary wins the vote of white racists. In states that have a race "cautious" population, Hillary dominates that demographic. By pandering to these people, she has lost the black vote and caused and a larger chasm between races in the electorate.
The third elephant represents that the Clinton campaign so poorly managed themselves, they allowed Obama to drub them throught the February calender. They ran out of money and could not compete. They are in that same boat again. You tell me how ANY American should expect Hillary to run a responsible government after she ran a campaign this way? Be it the markets or foriegn relations and national security, the arrogance and ineptitude that led to Clinton losing those states is identical to the mindset that gave us 9/11 and the current financial mess.
The fourth elephant represents that she cannot win the general election. Young Obama voters will not vote for her, nor will moderate Obama supporters, nor will Blacks, who make up over 20% of the Democratic party. Conservatives clamor to run against her. If nominated, Mccain will beat Hillary in the biggest landslide in US History
Lanny, Lanny, Lanny...
Get real. Here is the deal. Your argument is ridiculous, partisan and error filled. #1-5 and #7 all deal with Pennsylvania and nothing else. Number five is an outright lie, as Hillary ran plenty of negative ads, finished off with the "Osama bin Laden" ad on April 21st.
Your argument about one state, Mass., aside, Hillary runs behind McCain in Oregon and Washingtion while Obama leads. Hillary gets blown out in Wisconsin and Minnesota, where Obama leads. Hillary gets blown out in Nevada and Colorado; Obama is within the margin of error and puts those states in play.
Lanny, you can cherry pick one poll and find your candidate doing well as you have done, but Current RCP average of all polls has Seantor Obama ahead of Mccain by 1.1%, while Hillary lags behind nationally.
Bottom line, Hillary is not presidential. Educated voters know it. The Clinton campaign preys on the uneducated, the overeager and the needy much like used car salesmen prey on buyers who stumble on the lot and are haranged into buying something they do not really want.
Lanny, go sell your '74 Gremlin elsewhere. The majority of American people are not buying.
Oh -- I meant "jacksmith" -- it's hard to keep track of all of these people.
Lanny Davis oddly resembles the "jackdavis" bot in his thinking, except he doesn't call us all idiots. This article is being linked as a "humorous" post on other sites.
please, please, please - just give it up Hillary - Obama has won 30 states to your 15 - he has the votes - as far as this ridiculous assertion that democrats who vote in closed primaries are going to split their vote for the other parties candidate, it is absurd - most people who voted for Hillary WILL cast their votes for whoever the Dems candidate is, give it a rest - for an insightful take on this idiotic list, follow the link.
http://www.slate.com/id/2189812/
Thanks, good piece. Let's hope he's right about Hillary putting the party first soon.
C'mon, Obama is the candidate of Hope!
He "hopes" no one notices when he quotes anti-white lines from movies while speaking to mostly black audiences.
He "hopes" no one notices when he uses gangsta rap gestures which reference misogynistic lyrics.
He "hopes" no one notices that he is completely comfortable hanging out with America hating bigots.
He "hopes" no one notices that his political career shows very little accomplishments that he can call his own.
He "hopes" that he can continue to run a gutter/negative attack campaign against Hillary and no one will notice.
Audacity, baby!
This is so over-the-top rediculous... did you get this from Colbert or O'Reilly?
From the tone of your comments I suppose you "hope" that no one notices that your a complete bigot.
Wow, do you any actual examples of that, or did you just pull it all out of Mark Penn's derriere?
Do you need more examples, ChimesOfFreedom?
Plouffe called Hillary untrustworthy? How very impolite yet truthful of him. Her campaign since the weekend after the Austin debate has been the absolute nadir of her political career. I wouldn't trust her to bathe my dog.
Barack dealt with the Wright issue beautifully in his Perfect Union speech. I recommend you view it, and pay attention.
Gotta give you the Malcolm X reference. Yep, you nailed that one! So what? Malcom X was right, and still is. Latest example? How about Hillary's staffers sending "Obama is a Muslim" and "Obama in African garb" emails?
Jay-Z? Dirt off my shoulder "gesture"? I'll give you that one too. Obama MAY have once used the same gesture that was popularized in a rap video. Get back to me when he quotes Jay-Z's lyrics in a stump speech.
Now let's talk about something of real substance, like your support for your claims that Obama's "political career shows very little accomplishments" and that he's run a "gutter/negative attack campaign against Hillary." Oh, wait - you didn't provide any!
Accomplishments? Look at the community organizing work he did on Chicago's south side, or his tenure as a Constitutional law professor. President of Harvard Law Review? 800 bills sponsored in the Illinois Senate?
His record in the US Senate? I refer you to a very well-researched diary at DKos:
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/2/20/201332/807/36/458633
I HOPE you'll read it.
Lay off the oxycotin.
I "hope" you figure out that those are what we call "opinions", lacking not only examples, but substance.
Do you have the "audacity" to admit you've lost? ... or will you ride the derailed express right over the cliff with Hillary.
See you in November. Be sure to check the box labeled "Barrack Obama". If you can't bring yourself to do that, realize that you're voting for an extremely pro-life, war mongering republican.
But hey, if McCain wins - in four years when none of us have a buck to spare, your savior will run for the nomination again - with the same sad result.
Obama Campaign Attacks Hillary's Character -- Blasts Her As "Untrustworthy"
By Greg Sargent - March 21, 2008, 10:20AM
"We believe that this is a really important issue as super-delegates decide who will be electable in the fall," Plouffe said. "The American people are not going to elect someone who isn't seen as honest and trustworthy."
----------------------------
Obama's pastor and spiritual advisor who married him and baptized his children said the following:
"God damn America".
"The US of KKK A".
"Garlic nosed Italians"
"Greedy white people".
Google it.
So we're electing Obama's pastor to the office of the president?
Obama's Stump Lines Echo Malcolm X - Politics on The Huffington PostJan 28, 2008 ... Obama's Stump Lines Echo Malcolm X - The Huffington Post.
www.huffingtonpost.com/_83560.html - 43k -
"They're trying to bamboozle you," Obama said for the first time Wednesday in Sumter, S.C., to a predominantly African American crowd while refuting e-mails falsely identifying him as a Muslim. "Don't let people turn you around because they're just making stuff up. That's what they do. They try to bamboozle you, hoodwink you."
The Swamp: Obama's Jay-Z shout outBarack Obama's visual reference to rap star and pop icon Jay-Z's hit from a few years back, "Dirt Off Your Shoulder?" That's never stopped us before. ...
weblogs.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/blog/2008/04/obamas_jayz_moment.html -
Jay-Z "Dirt off your shoulder lyrics:
If you feelin like a pimp (racial slur), go and brush your shoulders off
Ladies is pimps too, go and brush your shoulders off
(racial slurs) is crazy baby, don't forget that boy told you
Get, that, dirt off your shoulder
"Dirt off your shoulder" is indeed urban slang but was NOT invented by Jay-Z, only popularized by him. So it is incorrect to associate that song with anyone who says "dirt off your shoulders." And since when bamboozle and hoodwink are english words not muslim words. Yes it sounds like a malcom x speech but malcolm x fought for equality not supremacy.
Bravo, Lanny!
Posted April 23, 2008 | 04:15 PM (EST)