Hillary's Bruce Willis Syndrome
The last week in March was, with little doubt, one of the most trying for the Clinton campaign. Her quest to gain superdelegates was blunted by Bob Casey and Bill Richardson, two major party players who have clearly recognized the writing on the wall. The core of her experience rationale was called into question when it was revealed that, on multiple occasions, Hillary had dramatically exaggerated her experience landing in war-torn Bosnia. It was also revealed that she had almost nothing to do with the SCHIP program she claimed to have created, with a number of those involved describing her accounts as straining credulity. She still hasn't released her tax returns, without explanation or justification and, she was quoted as taking credit for lobbying for the Family Medical Leave Act's passage, though it had passed the House and Senate before her husband took office.
Her insistence on making her candidacy about experience has shed light on parts of her character that might have been better left in the dark.
The tone and tenor of her campaign has also taken a surprising turn, becoming more and more a vehicle for open hypocrisy. Out of one side of her mouth, Hillary argues that all remaining contests should be completed before a decision is made and that Florida and Michigan ought to be seated for fear of their disenfranchisement. Out of the other side, she argues that the delegates that were allocated based on state primaries and caucuses should actually ignore their obligation to support the candidate to which they were pledged. She is uncomfortable disenfranchising Florida and Michigan, but perfectly content tossing out the other forty eight.
It would be silly were it not so serious.
The confluence of these events may have contributed to Hillary's slide in the national polls, a sign that perhaps, she has crossed a line that even her ardent supporters dare not follow. Last week's NBC/WSJ poll found her favorability rating had collapsed to 37%, and a recent Gallup tracking poll has her down 10 points against Obama.
It is likely, though, that this slip in polls is a preview of more to be expected. Though the facts of the race have remained relatively unchanged since March 4th, the coverage has changed dramatically. For weeks (if not months), the blogosphere has been saturated with compelling arguments explaining why Hillary cannot possibly reach the nomination. With the exception of rare stragglers like Jonathan Alter of Newsweek, very few in the mainstream media took a similar tone.
But last week that all seemed to change. Rather than inaccurately portraying the race as a virtual tie, a horserace likely to produce a photo-finish in Denver, the media has begun to confront the harder truth that the Clinton campaign is over. Like Bruce Willis in The Sixth Sense, the Clinton campaign doesn't yet know that it's already dead.
Her remaining rationale requires that superdelegates support her en masse, even if that means subverting the will of the voters. Thus far, there has been no indication, not even a remote one, that the superdelegates are inclined to do so. If not the superdelegates, Hillary needs pledged delegates to abandon their obligation. But pledged delegates are hand-selected by the campaigns they are pledged to, a group of true loyalists whose betrayal is truly implausible. She cannot catch up in the popular vote. She cannot catch up in the pledged delegate count. And she cannot catch up in states won.
At this point, her only hope would be for something so disastrous to happen to the Obama candidacy that superdelegates, the media, and the American people have an almost universal change of heart. Of course, any such event would likely be so dramatic as to end the Obama candidacy, forcing his withdrawal long before forcing the hands of party insiders.
The media has finally come around to this reality, and has begun to cover the campaign with accuracy for the first time since voting began. There will likely be nothing more punishing to the Clinton campaign. Until now, Clinton has been able to keep her supporters from defecting by convincing them that the race is exceptionally close and victory well within reach. But as Clinton supporters begin to realize that she cannot actually win, the tactics that she has shown comfort in deploying will become unpalatable.
After all, if she cannot win, why should Clinton supporters be comfortable with her aggressive attacks against Obama? If she cannot win, why has she been going out of her way to praise John McCain as being strong and ready and able? If she cannot win, why is she willing to take the party, and the country, through a painfully divisive convention fight, the outcome of which could be a weak and damaged nominee? If she cannot win, why is she still soliciting donors like they were an ATM on the bridge to nowhere? If she cannot win, why should they still support her?
These are difficult questions for Clinton supporters to confront and none of the answers provide good news for her campaign. The media, at this point, has all but assumed that she will win Pennsylvania and move the goalposts yet again. But in the 23 days between now and then, if this new media dialogue solidifies, Clinton might see a steep and rapid decline in her support, potentially enough to end the race in April.
Until now, the Clinton campaign has done a masterful job of depicting the campaign as a tight battle between champion and challenger, one expected to go 15 rounds without a knockout. But it seems far more like a best of seven series, one in which, after losing four games, she is inexplicably demanding to play the final three.
Loading comments…
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
"Hell hath no fury like that of a woman scorned". Barrak probably says it to himself 10 times a day.
I note that right-wing radio shows, which seem to have forgotten that Hillary existed over the past month, woke up this morning and realized she hadn't yet dropped out of the race. Oddly enough, the GOP picked up on who the Democratic nominee was some time ago, which placed Obama in their crosshairs ever since. One would expect Clinton's favorable ratings to go *up* under these more friendly media conditions, not hit a seven-year low.
I've noticed the Hillary supporters have really thinned out lately. That's encouraging in that it supports my theory most people are reasonable. The rest of you should go and frequent a blog more to your tastes and ideals. Might I suggest "Redstate" or some other delusional website. Your refusal to objectively view the situation (she's a goner) and the goal (win election from Republicans) makes you not only an annoyance, but a distinct liability. I'm being very polite when I say this. :)
I'll always be grateful to the Huffington Post and its legions of Obamaphiles with their hate-mongering attacks on Hillary Clinton for motivating us to give more to her campaign the final hours of this quarter.
To all friends of Hillary; we're doing great job of fundraising. Keep up the good work, and Hillary will soon leave Obama in the dust.
I'm sure Hillary appreciates your support. Your donations should help pay the interest she is charging on that $5 mill loan to herself, while leaving other bills unpaid.
"To all friends of Hillary; we're doing great job of fundraising. Keep up the good work, and Hillary will soon leave Obama in the dust."
A great job of fundraising? That explains why Clinton can't pay her bills. This type of statement is almost as accurate as having Commander in Chief foreign policy "experience" because of sniper fire. Losing by all measurable criteria, yet Hillary will soon "leave Obama in the dust".
The Clinton campaign has been a great example of chronic mass delusion.
When people ignore real numbers and go on beating a false lie, I worry for our country.
Barrack Obama picked up an inordinate amount of delegate votes in caucus states that only required 12% of the amount of voters per selected delegate. Population is irrelevant in this statistic. It would be tantamount to the primary states shutting down the voting booths after only 12% of those who were going to vote, had voted. These caucus mini delegates were also selected in environments that completely favored Obama voters in several ways. This aspect has been under reported by all media groups.
These mini delegates are somehow supposed to give Obama a "lead" even as two huge states that supported HIllary were not counted. Now Obama supporters paint Hillary as the unreasonable one as the Pennsylvania primary looms larger and another huge Obama loss is pending.
Hillary Clinton is poised to win 8 out of the 10 biggest states in the country if she wins in Pennsylvania (and Florida and Michigan are counted). Obama has no mandate, just cooked up mini delegate numbers that the media refuses to examine.
Caucus state delegates are mini-delegates. and have been used to railroad the nomination Obama's way. I'm beginning to wonder how many Obama supporters are actually Republican supporters in disguise because numbers tricks are what carried the Republicans in the last two selections. (not a typo).
I'm not discouraged, personally. I think Obama has put people into a box. They can't admit he's just another politician without admitting their own naivetee.
It's a clever con job.
And that's just going to be the story here.
hmmm ... so caucuses have railroaded the nominating season. Obama was pretty sneaky to think them up and get them in place in so many states. I'm glad they were never used in past nominations.
It couldn't possibly have anything to do with the Clinton Campaign not having the organizations in caucus states to turn out their supporters.
Your 12% statements are inaccurate. A candidate remains on the ballot if he has 12% behind him, but then the votes are counted and apportioned according to the whole.
Obama has won more primary contests than Clinton. Delegates are already apportioned by Democratic population size per state, so state 'size' is not an outside factor. It's already 'factored into' the results.
Obama Primary Wins equals 14 states: Alabama, Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Illinois, Missouri, Utah, South Carolina, Louisiana, Maryland, Virginia, Vermont, Wisconsin,and Mississippi, plus the Virgin Islands, Democrats Abroad, and D.C. (the last 3 are not included in the total.)
Obama Caucus wins equals 13 states: Alaska, Colorado, Idaho, Kansas, Minnesota, North Dakota, Nebraska, Washington, Maine, Iowa, Hawaii, Texas, and Wyoming.
Clinton Primary Wins equals 12 states: Arizona, Arkansas, California, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Oklahoma, Tennessee, New Hampshire, Texas, Rhode Island,and Ohio.
Clinton Caucus wins equals 2 states: Nevada and New Mexico, plus American Samoa.
Your argument is patently intellectually false. You belittle caucuses not because they are "anti-democratic" but because they do not support your candidate. If this were an issue, why didn't Hillary's supporters make protests *before the election* season? This is because, they believed their candidate was "inevitable," and therefore impervious to passionate supporters participating in the caucus process.
As a counterweight to this argument, you might consider national polling as a better "macro level" argument in favor of Hillary---that is, until recently. She led in the national polls until about a month ago and more recently has fallen behind beyond the margin of error. To say that Hillary is "poised to win" eight out of the top ten states is a flat-out canard; it presupposes three dubious arguments: that she wins PA, FL and MI. Furthermore, if that were the only issue, we should only hold primaries in the 15 largest states by population and ignore the rest.
The bottom line is that the rules of this competition were agreed upon by each of the candidates prior to a single vote being cast. If Hillary wants to win, there's a simple solution: just win--earn more delegates, both pledged and super, be they from caucus, primary or otherwise.
So you're saying that your team that made 2 touchdowns beats the team that made 5 field goals? Interesting theory....
Titonwan,
I have noticed the same phenomenon. I also log on to other blogs and have noted the same thing. The Democratic Underground has really undergone a transformation, especially since the Bosnia fairy tale and clinton's letter to Palosi. Comments are becoming more positive and full of hope.
Those that are left will be die-hards to the end. They have enveloped themselves in a cocoon and really do buy into the web clinton is spinning.
it's because hillary's paid troll's checks are bouncing.
well, last time I posted something, I got the following response:
"Isn't it true that the Indian community here has benefited from civil
rights while contributing virtually nothing? Isn't it true that the caste
system continues even here, as well as an inferiority complex left over
from British Colonial Rule, which causes internal division among Indians
here and which causes them , hidden in their Ivory Towers, to overly
identify with whites in an unctuous and sycophantic manner? African
Americans here, as well as many whites (and a big shout out to the Jewish
community) have made it possible for Indian Americans to go to these Big
10 Universities, many times at their own peril."
A slice of swiss cheese has less holes than the analysis in this screed. So, there is really nothing more to discuss. You guys can have the echo chamber to yourself.
p.s. you can check out the postings under the handle libran38. this exchange was in the comments section of an article by Trey Ellis...
I think that the reason that Clinton supporters have "thinned out" is because more middle-aged women (like me) have been talking frankly with our women friends--add this to the Bosnia whopper, that Chelsea endorsed, and more women are becoming resigned to the fact that while we would love to see a woman leader of this country--this woman is no leader.
We're supporting her because we still think she's going to win, despite the Obama campaign's cynically-
But none of that matters, because this contest really IS over. Here--prove it to yourself. Find a realistic way for Hillary to win (and remember, Obama just won Texas):
http://www
Now you need to recalibrate. You need to decide whether you really prefer McCain over Obama. Because you don't get Hillary. If she had fought harder in the beginning, she'd probably have the nomination in the bag by now. But she didn't fight hard enough. She blew it. Tough break.
Now the question is, do you want a Republican in office who is going to stack the Supreme Court with conservatives that will make your life miserable for the next 20-30 years? Do you want to stay in Iraq for at least the next four years? Do you want to watch the country slide even further into economic chaos? Because that's what John McCain is offering.
You're emotionally tied to Hillary. You've probably put a lot of hope and energy into her candidacy. But it really is over. You've got to give up the fantasy of Hillary as president, because that's all it is now. And you've got to decide where you want this country to go over the next four years. Your choices are not the choices you had hoped for. But they are your only choices.
Great post! I have never understood why clinton supporters say they will vote for mccain if she does not get the nomination. I have been an avid supporter of Senator Obama since he entered the race. However, if by some freak of nature hillary ended up as the Democratic nominee, I would vote for her. I would have to hold by breath until I turned blue, but four more years of Bush politics is more then I can handle. Your points are well made!
A realistic way for Clinton to win this is for the super delegates to come to their senses and vote for her.
You all act like the ONLY way to the nomination is to have the most PLEDGED delegates. It's NOT. Neither candiadte can get to 2024. BOTH candidates need super delegates to won. When we get done with ALL the primaries, the super delegates should weigh ALL the data and make a decision. They should no t just say one candidate is ahead in PLEDGED delegates therefore we MUST nominate that candiadte.
Who knows what may happen between now and then to make EITHER Clinton or Obama UNELECTABLE. But, if something like that does ahppen, I don't want the super delegates to fell the MUST do anything other than make the best choice for the party.
Thank you bobdob. A very rational appeal to Hillary supporters. No one likes their team to lose, but to borrow a line from Star Trek "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one".
The needs of the country, the world, and the democratic party are to get behind one candidate and start fighting for the general election or we'll be subjected to all the horrible outcomes you itemized.
HRC's continued campaign is an exercise in futility that helps none of the above. That's why I'm convinced (sadly) that this is all about HER and not about doing what's right to help this country.
Here here to bobdob...W
I say Hillary should keep going, if she likes. And, her supporters should keep supporting her, if they like. But, at the end of the day, if she doesn't make it, be a good sport and show some graciousness. After all, most of the readers of this site don't want McCain to be president--whether you like Hillary, Barack or someone else.
This makes no sense. The woman is a chronic liar and a cheat. You honestly prefer someone with no ethics to speak of in the white house? You must have voted for Bush.
It only makes sense if they prefer the white candidate over the "black" candidate. In America, southerners and midwesterners would rather vote for someone that ruins their lives than vote for a party that supports black and minority issues. Within the Democratic Party there is no difference. The sentiment was hidden because blacks stayed in their supportive role. But when they try to lead......
Why? Well, for the simple reason that she HAS to make it to the Convention so the Rove Machine can work its MAGIC and somehow 'mysteriously' get her the Nomination! See?
Brick
I don't see a problem with Senator Clinton continuing to run as long as she would start campaigning *against* John McCain. Both Dems should campaign against McCain now and at the same time. They should stay polite to each other and everyone should stop criticizing everyone else.
Keep the whole race about ideas and possibilities and show the weakness and flaws in the republican ideas.
There is no reason for people to get so hyper about the primary. Whatever happens will happen. Why make it into a mess?
Is this about money? I understand her campaign is in the red. Can the DNC pay her off? That is, agree to cover her campaign expenses, including the money she loaned herself, and short circuit this losing battle of a fundraising exercise?
She'd be too humiliated. Her soul is 99.44% pure ego. Rather than find a humble way to back out, she'd rather go down in flames, bankrupt. But even after becoming a tainted pariah, she'll still pretend to be important (and a frequent guest on fux news, to be sure), claiming all sorts of moral campaign victories where there have been none. I think, as they say, she "has jumped the shark" and those of us not emotionally invested in her personally are just watching her flail in the tank as the shark is circling..
geez...at this point i would send her money if it would go towards her quitting.
Another great post. The 'media' has also allowed the Clinton campaign a pass on its original agreement not to count Florida and Michigan. This has misled the average, casual Clinton supporter into thinking that Clinton is being unfairly treated. Those I've talked to are quite surprised when they learn the truth.
I have a question that maybe someone could answer:
Has the number of delegates required to win the race outright (2024) been 'prorated' to deduct Florida and Michigan?
Yes, per demconwatc
LarksTongue: Yes, it has. If FL and MI's contests were to count, the delegate total needed to win would be higher than 2025 (although I forget the exact number).
Thank you. Well then... it would seem reasonable that any media outlet running both the 2024 number AND the idea that Florida, Michigan and Clinton have been done some injustice ought to rectify their inconsistency with a full airing of the facts, saturation style.
Great analogies, thanks, especially the Bruce Willis one.
She's staying in because she believes she can win.
Her voters want her to stay in.
Duh!
Hillary is delusional at this point. Please don't go down that path. People will start looking at you and politely leave the room. "Duh!" Is that some kind of statement? You guys would probably be defending Nixon all the way to his resignation. (And it is going to happen to Hillary)
The Empress has no clothes.
Not so....she has a closet full of pant suits.
Don't pick on the pant suits! What else would a sensible woman wear if she had to dodge sniper fire and run for cover. Give her this break at least!
The best metric for who should be the Democrat nominee is money. Who's raising more campaign money? Who's campaign has a surplus, who's campaign CAN'T MEET THE BILLS? The people are speaking with their wallets and purses, but Hillary is too stubborn to understand what the pattern of contributions means.
Thank you for stating what is so obvious to those of us who are paying attention. The tide has turned. Well, in reality it turned 6 weeks ago, but the media is finally taking notice.
One thing to add to your sports metaphor: Clinton is the friend who, after losing 4 games out of 7, says, "Best 5 out of 9," and then, "Best 6 out of 11." Like that friend, people will eventually tire of Clinton's refusal to admit defeat. That is starting to happen.
If I were $2,500,000 in debt, I would be looking for another job. She needs to borrow $32 mil off of Bill and get a little deeper in debt by using that to pay her subordinates. Hell, she owes every state that she won. Her creditors are mad as hell already. How many more people is she going to stiff and get mad at her? Oh well, the DNC will bail her out. She will probably shed tears this month so someone will feel sorry for her and pay her debts off. Or, maybe she can write herself another check for $10,000,000 and make us feel sad again.
Thank you for telling it as it is. I am tired of the nasty fighting and lies which Barack has to defend himself from only then to be accused of starting it inn the first place by the Clintons. MSM has not been honest and is now only after much blogging and talking haave the MSM decided they no longer have to fear whatever they have thought could be done to them. I have long thought the Clinton's have held people and the MSM in fear of the Clinton's doing something to them. If the Super Delegates have been afraid of the CLintons also then what is it this power they hold over everyone? This fear of what they might have done to them by the Clintons?
Thank you, thank you, thank you.
If anyone thinks HRC should stay in, tinker with Slate's delegate counter. It proves pretty effectively that she can't win.
http://www
If there weren't a cost to HRC staying in the race, I'd say, sure, why not? But there are costs:
1) Every week, the Dems negatives go up while McCain's positives go up.
2) The tens of millions of dollars being spent on the primary could go to the general election. I know I don't have unlimited funds, and I'll bet there are lots of people who will feel tapped out by the time the primaries wrap up.
3) The intra-party divide increases each week; the tension is real and the bad blood won't entirely go away. The more time to heal, the better.
There are numerous precedents for wrapping up the nomination before all the states have voted. There's no precedent for the superdelegates to overturn the votes of the voters.
The fact is, Obama can not clinch the nomination either. When the boxing fight goes the distance, the judges decide.
The judges won't overturn the result of the contest, which Obama will have won.
And who do they award it to?
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
