|
||
Hillary's New Inevitability
Read more reactions from Huffington Post bloggers to the Pennsylvania Primary
Hillary Clinton scored a decisive victory against Barack Obama in Tuesday's Pennsylvania primary. But underlying the numbers, there is a new kind of inevitability on the horizon. Certainly her campaign will use the night's victory to propel the race forward into Indiana and North Carolina, hoping against hope that few noticed what actually transpired. But with her luck running as perilously low as her campaign war chest, it would seem improbable that the media would provide her cover yet again.
After tonight, despite an apparent ten point victory in Pennsylvania, Hillary Clinton is no longer electable in a general election.
According to NBC Political Director Chuck Todd, Obama can no longer lose the pledged delegate count. "If you could call a contest based on the delegate count, it now appears as though it's going to be impossible for Obama to lose his lead." To do so, Clinton who need some 80% of the post-May 6th delegates.
Clinton's net gain of the popular vote was also woefully insufficient for her to have a reasonable chance of reclaiming the popular vote lead. She net 200,000 votes on Tuesday, just enough to be all but cancelled out by Obama's likely win in North Carolina two weeks from now. With so few states left, the likelihood of her overcoming her popular vote deficit, even with Florida included, is simply implausible.
Without the ability to win any metric that measures the preferences of the electorate, she has left superdelegates with an impossibly narrow choice. There is now no longer a rationale from which the superdelegates could possibly hand her the nomination. She will, no doubt, spend the remainder of her campaign continuing to insist that she is more electable than Obama and that electability, more than democratic preferences, should be the standard on which decisions are made.
But Clinton's electability argument has also been completely upended. There is no argument, no matter how persuasive and cogent, that can be made to the superdelegates about Clinton's electability that won't be obliterated by Hillary winning the nomination unearned. If the superdelegates give Clinton the nomination without her having won the popular vote or pledged delegate count, without any rational connection to the will of the people, an enormous swath of Democratic voters are likely to stay home in November.
Since Franklin Roosevelt, no Democrat has won the White House without the loyal support of the African American community. But having watched the potential first black president denied his rightful chance to compete by party insiders may sever that loyalty permanently. The activist base of the Democratic party, which has been at the core of the remaking of the political landscape, will likely also be rocked by a Hillary coup. If the superdelegates nominate Hillary Clinton, it will rip the base of the party in half and destroy the extraordinary progress that the Obama movement - and the Dean movement before it - have produced. Even if she is more electable before their decision, she will be unelectable after.
Faced with that choice, superdelegates will recognize that the time has come. Having lost in Pennsylvania, Senator Obama should not expect an avalanche of new support. But the march of more superdelegates is likely to be steady and constant; Obama could certainly catch Clinton in May.
Hillary's success in Pennsylvania should not be entirely discounted. She did, after all, face an enormous fundraising disadvantage with Obama, having been outspent by as much as three to one. But demographically, Pennsylvania was tailor-made for the Clinton coalition; as such, her steady decline in support over the past six weeks is striking still. In the first polls taken after Texas and Ohio, Clinton led by as much as twenty five points in the state.
For Clinton, trouble does not end with Obama's potential gain of new superdelegates. The Obama campaign launched a cold-war style arms race in Pennsylvania, spending so much money that he effectively bankrupted the Clinton campaign. As of April, Obama has $42 million cash on hand to Clinton's $9 million - and Clinton is $10 million in the red. Like Reagan did to the Soviet Union, Barack Obama spent the Clinton Empire to death. With the little money she had left, she needed to buy herself a much larger victory. She needed to buy herself a new rationale for her tired candidacy. Instead, all she bought herself was a little more time.
This campaign will surely continue on for at least another two weeks. But ultimately, without the money, votes, and delegates she needs, Hillary Clinton is out of options, out of scenarios, and out of reasons to continue.
Read more reactions from Huffington Post bloggers to the Pennsylvania Primary
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
It's very possible that Hillary could be McCain's VP, thus completing the dream ticket for the Bush/Cheney/McCain/Clinton Axis. They are both working from the same playbook, so they might as well tie the knot. Obama is the only candidate left standing who wants to do the most good for the greatest number of Americans. The longer Clinton stays in the race, the more obvious it is that she's hoping to damage Obama sufficiently to cause him to lose to McCain so that she can take another shot in 2012. Clyburn has her pegged. So do I.
If Obama was as "unlucky "as Hillary he would have this thing wrapped up by now.If his luck "ran out"
like Hillary"s he would already be the nominee.
Whatever the playbook, Obama just doesn't seem interested enough to read it or understand it. If he really thinks he is going to be the nominee, he should begin attacking McCain ON THE ISSUES. You and Clyburn and a few others just want to prepare the voting public for Obama's ultimate defeat if he doesn't win the national election. All Hillary's fault...garbage! Most Americans have no idea what Obama wants to do for the "most good for the greatest number of Americans,." He's all about generalities, himself, indeed his right, to be president. McCain has a record and it is eminently able to be attacked. Why doesn't he attack it and avoid what he has described as "distractions" from the Clinton campaign?
All the Obamacons play with the numbers: she'll win 200,000 in this state and he'll even it up in that state; he has this many delegates, she can't catch up with the numbers. The fact is that the magic number can't be achieved by either one of them if the primaries continue to go the way they have been. If they weren't true, Obama could simply shut down his attacks on Clinton and go straight for the jugular, McCain's. He spends very little time attacking McCain. In truth, he spends very little time on any of the issues and you can bet McCain will be able to talk circles around any positions Obama has. Having read through a lot of these posts, what is the most scary is that the talk about dividing the Democratic Party is really water over the dam because the division is very apparent from the posts here. Is everyone really afraid of some black versus white riot in Denver? Sounds like it. Obama can't close the deal and yet that will be Clinton's fault......, because she continues to run in the contest. WOW
this is just plain wrong. The Daily Show played footage this wk of him attacking McCain, laughing at him for acting like he's won the nomination. Well, unless the back room pols take it away from him,( in which case we'll write him in) , he has! The dude is damned if he does, damned if he doesn't. All because the lobbyists and the DC establishment is starting to get it that he's serious about this "change" business. It's not just one more campaign slogan.
I believe he barely spends any time now on Clinton. Won't debate her (why should he? ) She is becoming just an annoying, waspish pain in the ass. She can't win, only drags the party down.
In a similar situation, Romney left for the good of the party. You have to admire the Republicans for caring about the party above themselves.
But in the Clintons we are dealing with BLIND EGOTISM.
I am one 55 yr old Whte Feminist who would never vote for Hillary in my lifetime after this Divisive and racist performance..
The numbers, as they currently are, will not assure either candidate the nomination - that's true, but having all three of the golden rings makes you the most likely to get the prize!
Rutherford B. Hayes... remember him? Blacks left the Republican Party because of the backdoor shennanigans used to get Hayes into office. History has shown that, as Mr. Loewe aptly points out, no one has won 'the' office without clear backing, or the lack thereof by the Black vote. Would the DNC risk in opportunity to seat the best candidate because some say that he is not electable - I think not?
With regard to McCain, I doubt if Mr. McCain can remember long enough the train of thought required to articulate a credible response to any of the questions that will be presented in a one on one debate with Obama. Mr. McCain claims to have discovered a 'new' commitment to champion the welfare of all the people. To quote him "I am going to be the President of all the people, whether they vote for me, or not. Well I won't, and we will see if he will. Not much will change with Mccain in office from what already is the norm.
Frankly, Mr. McCain's positions on the war, the tendency by the voters to refuse to re-elect another representative from the party of the previous eight years, and the outright disingenuous nature of the Republican Party makes Obama's chances of gaining the White House insurmountable.
So are you speaking on behalf of African Americans saying they would vote (or not vote) such that McCain will prevail and their sons and daughters will continue to be sent to war or be denied health insurance? Do you think Obama's ability to move people forward would allow that? Can he not/would he not influence his constituency to put a democrat in office should he not be the nominee? And if not, what does that say about him or his followers. And are you saying that the wisely considered votes of the superdelegates are supposed to be "bonus points" for the popular vote, or most states won, or to be pulled (swoosh) to follow the position of previously pledged delegates? As for the golden rings, the electoral votes of the states already completing the primary process (and factor something in for FL and MI) is as or more indicative of who is likely to win in November. It is the electoral votes that matter as well as the three other golden rings. It is not "backroom shennigans" or a "stolen election" when folks sit down and put all the factors on the table to figure out who can best take the White House and how.
Pelosi is wrong to dismiss a shared ticket. She's probably throwing it away with that.
Dylan, the actual # of points that Hillary won this primary by is 8.5. Hardly a decisive # in my book.
Further, Obama closed gap of being something like 20 pts. behind to only being 8.5 pts. behind. Now that is impressive.
Read my comment to Arianna. With the support of Scaife, all Hillary needs to do are:
1.) Make it impossible, with her attacks, for Obama to win in Nov.
2.) Ditch the party and run as independent. With the support of Scaife and his "shit machine", she cannot lose. And, if she chooses Huckabee as her running mate, that would be a dream team in attracting the key Republican constituency in Nov. Remember: Hillary is obsessed with the power of the "Imperial Presidency". She is an autocratic person by nature, and secretive. She makes an ideal person to continue Bush decisions vis a vis corporations, perhaps with more subtely than McCain.
If Hillary and Bill Clinton think they will get to the White House treating the African American community with total disrespect (which they have done up until now) I wish them and the party well. I think we need to teach the Clintons a lesson called respect. Let's NOT vote for Hillary!
How soon you forget,!
Clinton was called the first black president, for his support of the black, brown community. Talk about racism , just because someone is half-black dosen't make him a messiah. Dissing the Clintons is not bringing America together.
Will someone please explain to me how someone with negatives so high can win an election?
White Blue Collar Voters.
And people not following the election very closely, who view everyone as simply being like her. (Old, dirty politics - "best just to vote for the person closest to your race/gender/age" - whatever).
A lot of the older folks aren't engaged as much in the discussion, either. Some are - but this is more a youth and Internet thing. Many are just spectators, as is the tradition in politics. (Before the current election, that is.)
If the negatives are high enough, they won't!
Most assuredly I tell you that an uneducated man will do what he has always done until someone slams the door on his ability to do what he has always done. He will then revert to the only other thing that he has always done prior to his last choice having been taken away from him.
A thinking man will look for viable alternatives...
I have listened to both Clinton's and Obama for month's and what I have learned is amazing. especially if you watch Hillary Clinton's words and McCain's. They are PROJECTING THEIR OWN PATHOLOGY. I knew this before I guess, now it is sychronized. The outlandish statement's they both make is incredible. I do know, Hillary really is a neocon. She's a wolf in sheep's clothing. I am sure she has Republican stratagist on her team.
The difference is Obama's candidacy is potentially transformational, unlike the other candidates. He could take America...finally...past the debilitating, self-perpetuating family quarrel of the baby boom generation that has long engulfed all of us.
It's most obvious manifestation is political rhetoric. Bill O'Reilly's nightly screeds against anti-Americanism, Keith Olberrman's "Worst person in the World" on the other; MoveOn.org's "general betrayus, Ann Coulter's Treason, Michael Moore's accusation of treason at the core of the Iraq War, Sean Hannity's assertion of treason in the opposition to it-is particularily striking when you examine the generally minor policy choices. Something deeper and more powerful than actual decisions we face is driving the tone of the debate.
This is not normal times. We are talking about a world in which Islamist terror, combined with increasingly available destructive technology, has already murdered thousands of Americans, and Muslims, could pose an danger to the West. This Presidency calls for a cool head, temperament, balance, insight and foresight. Not 'unstable' , destructive angry candidate's. Obama is a great choice.
" If the superdelegates give Clinton the nomination without her having won the popular vote or pledged delegate count, without any rational connection to the will of the people, an enormous swath of Democratic voters are likely to stay home in November."
IT IS A BEAUTIFUL THING TO WATCH HER AND HER CAMPAIGN IMPLODE. SHE'S A DISGRACE TO WOMEN AND OUR POLITICAL SYSTEM!!!!!
I've seen a number of interesting articles about some feminist groups not liking her. The rationale is that she's the antithesis to feminism: She's a woman, who is where she is --- because of her husband --- or that she tears up and throws tantrums, when things don't go her way.
Stereotypes, that women groups would like to overcome [naturally].
There are a lot of great women in this world, who have gotten into a position of leadership by their own merits... just not Hillary.
Let's see then: You think that if she was so called to elected service, she could have/should have run for office while being the First Lady of Arkansas for 11 years? And that she could have/should have run for office while she was the First Lady of the nation for 8 years? Or is it you think if she really was called to elected service, calculating for that intent, she should have with foresight divorced her elected partner and dumped her roles as First Lady, so she could by your measure, incorporate your feminist model? . .....and do you mean she could/should have done so instead of, or in addition to, her many contributions and works on behalf of children and education while serving the role of First Lady? Or is it that you mean a woman can't run for office ever as long as her male partner has occupied one?
Boy, you sure put women in a box. Tell me again exactly what her choices were and what kind of feminism you subscribe to.....
Is it time for a third party? This might be a golden opportunity to break up the take it or leave it two party system. If Democratic super delegates side with the Clinton camp then that will give the "outcasts" just what we need: A Movement to make real changes.
Hillary is using your donations, your hard earned cash, to incite riots at the DNC in Denver and promote racism.
Four Hillary Clinton ads ran during a recent Rush Limbaugh radio show where he encouraged his listeners to start riots at the Democratic National Convention in Denver while playing the song "I'm Dreaming of a White Christmas" in the background.
here are the links:
http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/15980105/detail.html
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/04/rush-limbaughs-call-for-race-r.php
Of course the african community would back Clinton. Obama unfortunately has some serious problems with working whites and latinos. Don't know why but that's it. Plus women, and seniors. Ya, can't wait to see Obama run in Florida if he gets the nomination.
Those "problems are illusions. The political reality is that white working class voters will split as they usually do between the Dems and the Repubs. Hispanics and African Americans will split historically 80/20 Dems vs Repubs. The reality is Dems have lost the working class white vote since Reagan. The GOP found that they can pander to the three G's and play the character assassination game. That has worked well.
The real issue is; can the message of inclusion, the message of personal as well as civic responsibility and accountability really work this time or are 51% Americans still lazy and gullible enough to ignore what is happening to their country?
When a politician says "get off your couch, turn off your TV; pay attention to the people you employ to make decisions for your country and hold them accountable, when a politician says that the problems of our country is more than a president can handle alone and that the people have to work together at rescuing the country; I feel that is the candidate that I will support. Many people in this country feel the same way.
I am with you!
I'm a long time democrat, white, 67 years old, and from Central Pennsylvania. If Ms. Clinton wins the primary, I'll be one of those staying at home in November. Three terms of Bush's and two terms of Clinton's, for Gods sake it is time for a change. Who's next, their daughters. Come on ladies, you should have come up with a better candidate. You have 100's of well qualified women to choose. Why this one? Take a look at Kansas, Missouri, California and Maine.
P.S. The republicans could also have made a better choice. Is this the best they could do?
Here, here roneckley16823 - I'm with you on this!
Don't stay home!
Write in President Barack Obama!!!!
Oh that's so very good, why didn't I think of that. Consider the consternation when he wins the GE as a write in. I simply love it.
For a "long time democrat," you certainly don't sound like one. This new mantra of "too many Bushes/Clintons--It's time for 'change'" defies all logic. Wasn't too long ago really that practically every Democrat in the country was wishing there'd be a Kennedy "dynasty"--First Jack, then Bobby, then Teddy--24 years. When all that failed to materialize, people were still talking about John Jr., or any of the other hundreds of Kennedy kids who seem to have entered politics, running for president someday (i.e., Bobby Jr.). Nobody cried foul about too many Kennedys. It was as if we could never get ENOUGH Kennedys. But now suddenly it's a bad thing for qualified and experienced relatives of a successful president to consider running, because the only important thing is "change." The Obama camp has brainwashed its followers into lumping one of the most successful administrations along with 2 of the worst, as though they were the same thing. Where WERE you people during the 90s? Of course we all remember the discord brought on by Republicans who threw everything they could, including the kitchen sink, at Bill Clinton, and still failed to bring him down (They'll do the same with Obama). Why couldn't they? Because he brought about the greatest prosperity and international good will in American history, and left office with some of the highest approval ratings in modern history. Damned right I want more of THAT same!
There are a lot of Democrats out here that did not drink the Kennedy kool-aid. Jack, yes. Bobbby, meh, OK. Teddy - good Lord no. I do think ther was some hope for JFK Jr, until the wheels started coming off of that family and all the dirty little secrets poured out.
More of the Clintons, you say! While they may not have been able to 'get Bill' during his stint in office, Bill did more to make it easy for Gore to lose. Furhtermore, Bill seems to be doing a fine job of stripping the wheels off of his wife's cart with his ramblings and false positives. She can't control him now, Lord knows what will be taking place were she to get into the WH as our President.
Since he sat in the Oval Office chair before she did, he probably will wander back into the Office and claim the chairs as his by right of prior possession!!
Be sure to take all your toys with you.
Before Clinton's corporate masters take them away if she somehow wins.
I share your dismay at the prospect of a dynasty, a monarchy developing in the States. But, even if Clinton does somehow manage to snatch victory from almost certain defeat, you should still vote. There are other excellent democratic candidates to support, and Hillary is still better than McCain.
Indeed, this cannot be stated strongly enough. She will lack any credible argument for being chosen and it will smell to high heaven for her to be selected over the leader in pledged delegates. It is insane to think Obama is supposed to bow out or accept less because "it's her turn" or whatever is stated. She will appear to be a fraud. She will have significant problems within her own party and will give a very clear argument as to why she should not be elected. Worse, her campaign seems to be committed to dirtying up Obama and someone making him unelectable. The longer this goes on, the more potential for damage it does, to Clinton, to the party, to November and to Obama.
I am a Democrat through and through I will vote for HRC if she wins the nomination honesly. But I don't have to like it. I am sick of the nasty commets going back and forth while McBush sits on the sideline lying up a storm. It's is good that someone is pointing out the flaws in HRC's campaign tactics, too bad MSM won't pick it up.
But how can she win it 'honestly'???
its all about the #'s.. And she can't and won't ever have them.. Unless the super dels undo the will of the people.
She won’t have to spend money on ads in NC. The Republicans are doing that for her.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
