Today marks the 47th and 48th primaries or caucuses for the Democratic presidential nomination. More than 90 percent of the delegates will have been chosen by tonight. By now, we all ought to know the drill.
The day begins with the Clinton campaign "leaking" something to the Drudge Report to set expectations for the day. That then gets repeated on political blogs and cable news, where Clinton surrogate Terry McAuliffe elaborates. Today's "expectation": That the Clinton campaign expects a "15 point" defeat in North Carolina. Clinton's yapping puppies in the news media repeat the manufactured expectation all day long, in which the bar is supposedly now that if Clinton comes within 15 points in that state that she has somehow "won" with a 14 point (or 6 point) defeat.
Around 4 p.m. rumors of exit polls begin circulating on the Internet. Around 5:30 p.m. AP and other news organizations leak minor data from the exit polls that explains almost nothing of value. Sometime after 6 p.m. Drudge posts raw numbers from exit polls that - if past is prologue - show Obama doing an average of seven percentage points better than he actually does.
Obama supporters then get prematurely jubilant and after polls close (tonight at 7 p.m. ET in Indiana and 7:30 p.m. ET in North Carolina) the real results start to come in and reveal Clinton then doing "better than expected" (at least better than the new expectations promoted during the day).
The media talking heads then ask aloud why Obama can't "close the deal" (in Clinton's own words) and what is numerically a defeat for Clinton (because the results, even in her recent wins, bring her objectively farther from the nomination in the context of the smaller number of delegates then available) gets spun as a Clinton victory.
Clinton takes to the stage, claims "unexpected" victory, gives out her web site address and pleads for elder women on fixed incomes to send more money to the $109 millionaire. The following day they claim that $10 million rolled in, only to be disproved more than a month later when the actual FEC filing is due. Obama's FEC filing simultaneously reveals that he raised much, much more, from more small donors, and the Clinton campaign plays the victim card over being outspent.
The Chicken Littles among Obama supporters then proceed to agonize across the Internet for days on end, seemingly oblivious to the fact that their candidate has just moved closer to the nomination, and Clinton was pushed farther away from it.
Most undeclared superdelegates duck behind all the media-generated confusion to continue to keep quiet, although a few courageous ones a day come dribbling out, more for Obama than for Clinton, also moving Obama closer to the nomination and Clinton farther away.
Meanwhile, the media then looks to the next state - this time it will be West Virginia, the best state demographically for Clinton, who is 30 points ahead there - and proclaims that it's "do or die" and begin anew with the spin cycle about white Appalachian voters being the only voters that matter.
Around that point in the process, the Clinton campaign holds a conference call to move the goalposts again, as Keith Olbermann so masterfully explained last night:
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
OTOH, I've certainly not noticed any anti-hillary bias in the blog-o-sphere.
Oh, gawd!.
She's claimed victory (4%?) in Indiana, talked about on to the White House and then gave out the Hillary.com website and begged for money.
more "Ready on day one.
She's still talking about the price of gas. Didn't she get the memo?
They're chanting: "Yes, She Can". Uh...huh? I guess "Yes, We Will" sounds elitist.
OH.....it's CNN. That explains it.
LOL. Not quite as elitist as "Indeed, we shall."
What will happen is Obama will get some favorable press coverage after being flogged over the head with Rev. Wright, elitism, and bowling for the past month. Then Hillary will triumphantly rise back up after "having been knocked down", and declare in her West Virginia and Kentucky victory speeches that "this win was for all the folks who've been counted out". The media will then go on a feeding frenzy and declare that there must be buyer's remorse, and the pundits will endlessly ruminate over whether Obama can win without the coveted "swing bigot" vote. Et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. How many times must we see this movie? It is getting old old old.
I am thinking that people must be having deja vu about having had deja vu about having had deja vu....kind of like that Land O'Lakes butter package, in which the indian maiden is holding a box with her picture on it holding the box with her picture holding the box with her picture, etc.
When I was 7 or 8, I used to think that if I understood all of the folding-in-on-itself "realities" of that picture, I would have some truth by the tail.
Now I am grown up (and probably no less weird than I was then), I think of the package as a sales device, same as I think of Hillary's "I am winning" scam.
He forgot moving the goal posts.
Apparently 2,025 isn't enough anymore. According to Hillarymath Obama now needs 2,209.
OOOoo.
And don't forget....."Obama outspent us a Bazillion to 1."
Apparently, she is only more "electable" among those who don't donate to political candidates. Of course, by Hillary-think, this becomes Obama's fault.
SO CLINTON SUPPORTERS WON'T VOTE FOR OBAMA - ARE THEY NUTS?
50% of Clinton supporters IN indiana say they won't vote for Obama if he is the candidate. Most of these voters are probably militant women and working class men. Now McCain has promised to appoint conservative judges. That means if a Supreme Court vacancy occurs during his administration, goodbye Rowe vs Wade etc. It means no universal health care. I refuse to believe that these people will "cut off their noses to spite their faces".
On the other hand black voters as a demograhic unit have nothing to gain from a Clinton administration. In my judgment, George Bush has done more to raise the status of black citizens than Bill Clinton ever did. Bush'sappointment of Condoleeza Rice and General Powell to high visibility cabinet positions has helped to make an Obama campaign for president plausible. What exactly did President Bill Clinton ever do specifically for black people. When did he ever expend political capital for Blacks as a demographic group. So if Black people incensed by the racial undertone of the Clinton campaign sit on their hands, they have little to lose.
They just called NC for Obama.
If she wins the nomination I will vote for McCain. If you really wants this all to go to hell we can get there quicker at least with him rather than her. Thanks John Edwards, thanks Al Gore, what great Americans you are. Shinning beacons!
How dare you! That's what I call a spite vote. I'm an independent who used to support all three leading Democratic candidates, and I'm getting really angry with Clinton, whom I used to admire deeply. But I will still vote for her if she gets the nomination. Remember, McCain could actually be worse than Bush -- and he will have the opportunity to appoint Supreme Court Justices (and admires Bush's choices ...). I hope you're just kidding, really. If not, grow up and at least do us the favor of not voting at all.
Write-in for Obama, and get everyone you know to do so, as well. There are certainly enough who won't vote for either of them to beat both of them if everyone writes in. Not to mention that her victory woudl be yet another fraud forced upon the American people.
Giordano has a brilliant political mind. Glad to see him back here on HuffPo.
Brilliant. Thanks for laying it out...and I agree Olberman's piece on the metrics built on shifting sands was spot-on. I listen to POTUS 08 on XM on my drive to work and unfortunately have been exposed to a full hour, at times, of Wolfson and Icky....(I know, its Ickles or something like that) spewing the most loathsome stuff. Last night they were going on about 'Well, the Obama camp predicted a win in Indiana....we want to KNOW do they still stand by that'....as though it were a major policy position....WTF is up with these guys...what about when Hillary was inevitable...or that she would sweep the board on Super Tuesday...or whatever....I am so frustrated and fed up with the MSM giving these clowns airtime, I stopped watching their coverage months ago. My question is, when Obama is the nominee is CNN going to back McBush or will we get some balanced coverage from them?
OK, if Hillary wins Indiana, I want my gas tax holiday RIGHT NOW!!!!!
Shoot me an email and I will send you a nickel, the real world equivalent of the value of the gas tax holiday.
Brilliant post. But imagine the following:
After the polls close after each primary, each of the candidates makes a speech only vaguely referring to their win/loss and then it's on to the next state(s). The media babbles on about the horse race but no one cares. I hate to use a tired sports metaphor but here it is: Hillary may be moving the goal post after each primary but she is not moving up the finish line. This baby is going all the way.
What's so wrong with that? Why is everyone asking for an "end" to a system that is meant to CHOOSE not simply KNIGHT a winner? Every state should get a shot at it (well, except two: sorry Michigan and FLA but you screwed up). When all the primaries are over the party powerful will meet in their ionic breeze-filled rooms and figure out who to put on the ticket. Then it's on to the convention.
panderwatch.com
There is nothing wrong with the system. You have to ask what is wrong with the candidate who is trying to con the system because she can't win playing by the rules.
You nailed it. It's not the system, though that's flawed in my opinion, but the outrageous depths to which Clinton sinks in her desperate attempt. She is undermining her own party by being so underhanded, not by continuing her campaign, which is her right.
Great summary of the last couple months
Wow, you must be Psychic! I think you have a real future with a 900 number, you'll be set. Thanks, I thought this was deja vu ... I don't understand how more people just don't see this vicious cycle.
Reality check time. Obama hasn't been able to close the deal on the Great Lakes states. Each successful presidential candidate in modern times has won two out of the three swing states: Pennsylvania, Ohio and Florida. So far Obama has struck out with Ohio and Pennsylvania who should be his neighbors. With Republican moderate Crist's high popularity in Florida, the betting is looking grim for an Obama success in the sunshine state. Those 270 electoral votes have to come from somewhere.
He did that weeks ago, you moron. It's long past "closed". Hillary's as dead in the water as a lamprey-raddled coho salmon stinking up the beach.
What you're seeing isn't even a dead dog bounce from the Hillary camp; it's nothing but Hillary Clinton and her buddies whistling past the graveyard while trying to convince fools like you that the goalposts should have been some place else.
Reality check time for you, Hollywood: Pennsylvania is not going to go Republican in 2008 no matter who the nominee is; it has not gone Republican since 1988. California, New York, Massachusetts and Michigan are not going Republican either. As for Ohio and Florida there is no reason to assume Obama would do worse in either of them than Hillary. The "Obama can't win the big states" argument is hokum.
Actually, the head to head polls in Pennsylvania show Obama leading -- with an average of 1.2% or within every single poll's margin of error. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/pa/pennsylvania_mccain_vs_obama-244.html
As for Ohio, the RealClearPolitics average shows Obama losing within the margin of error 3.4%. In other words a toss up which is remarkable considering that the GOP was thrown out on its ass in 2006. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/oh/ohio_mccain_vs_obama-400.html
As for Florida, McCain has a 9% average lead as indicated in the RCP poll, or well outside the margin of error in anyone's poll. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/fl/florida_mccain_vs_obama-418.html
As for California, early indications are that Obama is of course ahead. However, his position on favoring drivers licenses for illegals is one of the main reasons that Gray Davis was thrown out of office. It is an incendiary issue that will cause the Independent vote to swing toward the GOP. And there is enormous goodwill toward McCain in California. He will also have the Governator campaigning for him. Arnold just managed to stomp out the Dems in his 2006 gubernatorial reelection campaign. Frankly Clinton would have an easier time with California than Obama. Let's also not forget that California is also the birthplace of the Bradley Effect.
i live in michigan hollywood bill. reality check time for youl. polling shows obama beating mccain and hillary losing to mccain by 11 points in my state. you can not go what happens in the primary season. six months ago the polls showed hillary beating obama by 30 points! look where we are now!
Every campaign plays the expectations game. Your attempt to make it look like the Clinton campaign is the only one doing this is disingenous. For instance, the Obama campaign struggled mightily before and after the vote to spin his crushing defeat in PA into a "win". Nobody was buying that sad attempt, however. He's been spinning his Indiana loss for weeks now as well.
Obama is only winning in states with large African American voting blocs--and most of those are states that won't go Democratic in November. He's tanking in the big electoral states among the voters the Democrats must have to win in November. That's not spin, that's a fact.
The Democrats don't win the presidency without Ohio or Florida, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, and Missouri. Obama will lose just about all of those states. Clinton can win them all.
" ... his crushing defeat in PA ..."
"Crushing"? Her Royal Highness won by single digits in a state where she once led by 30 points.
"The Democrats don't win the presidency without Ohio or Florida, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, and Missouri. Obama will lose just about all of those states."
Absolute bullshit. Pennsylvania will not go Republican no matter who's on the ticket, and there's no reason to believe Hillary will do better in any of the other states you mention than Obama. Frankly, with everything the Repukelicans have going against them this year I don't think any of them will even be in play.
Primaries are not the same thing as the general election; Barack Obama could do just as well as Mrs. Clinton in the main democratic strongholds, among blocs of voters with that he now runs behind in. He also appears to be well positioned to do well in swing states, for example, he can win states like Virginia and Colorado that haven't been in play. Senator Clinton"s only path to the nomination is to convince us that, although the math is against her, she will nonetheless be the stronger general-election candidate. Would you as a democrat, deny the person with the most pledged delegates his right to the nomination based on a rather untrustworthy presumption? Is winning at all costs really the way the party should go? If so, I think it is time for a third party in this country.
Conversely, it would be very difficult for her to win without the AA vote.
If Senator Clinton can win them all, why can't she win 31 contests against Senator Obama? Why can't she raise more money than him? Shouldn't it be a walk in the park for her? After all, she has the much larger "minority", women, in her back. Or let's just say, she had. Those default voters are long gone. Now she is scraping the bottom of the oil barrel with people who are desperate enough to buy into the Clinton/McCain gas tax holiday.
We will let it play out. A lot of people will have egg on their face.
They all do a measure of spin. And his was not a "crushing" defeat - a "crushing" defeat was what Hillary got in Wisconsin, Idaho, etc. - which I note are almost lily white. Obama has won 31 of the contests, and most of those DON'T have huge African American voting blocs.
Clintonian memory is short when it doesn't favor them.
Dead on. That is seriously funny! Thank you. I had a good laugh.
brilliant post. thanks for making me smile as I try really, really hard not to look at the damned exit polls!
Damn you're good! Hope you get a commentator spot on the Huffington News Network!
That was eerie.
This made me smile :) Truth be told.
I knew I had seen Hillary's campaign before...but damn, I couldn't remember exactly where or when. Then it came to me. She is taking some notes from the pages of Governor George Wallace's campaign! I recall when Governor Wallace ridiculed the haughty intelligentsia and campaigned as a representative of the working class. Latter, those who voted for Wallace became the Reagan Republicans. Hillary is, essentially, pandering to the "Reagan Republicans". In effect, Hillary is going after McCain's Republican base who, in November, will vote Republican as always.
Posted May 6, 2008 | 05:20 PM (EST)