The Big Costs of Hillary's "Big Wins"
Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton may have won three of four primaries last Tuesday, gaining needed momentum for her flagging campaign, but in the end the cost of these wins may prove too high.
First and foremost, is the fact that, despite the victories, she still cannot capture the nomination unless there is a party-splitting fight or equally damaging rule change.
After Super Tuesday, Senator Barack Obama proceeded to win 12 contests in a row, amassing an elected delegate total that Clinton cannot surpass. Before last Tuesday, Obama had won 24 state contests to Clinton's 11, and he led by 160 delegates. Clinton's three victories will only net her campaign an extra six delegates, reducing Obama's lead to a still insurmountable 154.
Political analysts, looking forward to the remaining 12 states to hold primaries and caucuses, argue that unless Clinton wins them all by an average of 65 percent (an impossible scenario), she cannot catch up. This, therefore, means that Obama will go to the convention in Denver with more elected delegates than Clinton, though not the outright majority needed to win the nomination.
Two options will then remain. One, of course, is that superdelegates will decide the winner. The danger here is that if the superdelegates vote to give the nomination to the second-place Clinton, the Democratic Party may well emerge from the convention divided, and with a wounded nominee.
Barack Obama has not only energized African Americans, but mobilized a movement of young people with a restored faith in politics. Along the way, he recruited tens of thousands of volunteers and received contributions from an unprecedented 1.1 million donors (most of them for $100 or less). His campaign bears many of the trademarks of a social movement. Because of this, many of those he has energized and mobilized will not simply follow a nominee whom they feel won a "fixed" contest, and represents "politics as usual."
Another party-splitting scenario proposed by the Clinton campaign, is their insistence on having delegates from Michigan and Florida seated at the convention. Michigan and Florida broke party rules, had their delegates canceled, and saw none of the candidates campaigning in either state. These elections were not real contests. Clinton won in Michigan because she was the only major candidate who remained on the ballot (the others having withdrawn their names); and she won in Florida largely because of name recognition, since Obama honored the party's pledge not to campaign in the state. Therefore, to reward both states' bad behavior would compromise the integrity of the election and result in a divided and possibly rancorous Democratic convention.
Nevertheless, most Democrats want the Florida and Michigan problems to be fixed -- but not in a manner that would have their non-sanctioned primaries decide the outcome of the convention. A number of options are currently being discussed, and it is hoped that this matter can be resolved before too long.
Another major reason why the costs of Clinton's victories may be too high has to do with the tactics they utilized to achieve them. Almost since the beginning of this campaign, Hillary Clinton, her husband (the former president) or campaign operatives, played many negative cards in an effort to slow Obama's growing momentum. They played the "Muslim card," the "race card," the "experience card," the "drug card," and the "gender card." None succeeded.
And so when, in the last two weeks, the Clinton campaign promised a stepped-up negative assault, it was not surprising to see them find still more cards to play. There was, for example: the "fear/security card" (with Clinton claiming that only she -- or her Republican opponent! -- had the experience to defend the country from a terrorist threat), or the "cynicism card" (with Clinton mocking Obama's political rhetoric), or the "scandal card," the "victim of unfair media card" or the "plagiarism card." All of these combined took a toll, not only on Barack Obama, but on the Democratic constituency.
The constant attacks did, at times, appear to throw the Obama campaign slightly off-kilter; but, more than that, they opened up and deepened some fissures within the Democratic Party itself. As a result, following primaries, it now appears that about one-fifth of those who voted for Barack Obama have been so angered by these negative tactics that they would be hard-pressed to support Clinton if she were the nominee. Similarly, Clinton has now succeeded in molding the attitudes of about one-fifth of her voters who now say that they will not now support Obama should he be the nominee.
The negative campaigning worked, but arguably will help Republicans more in November than it helped Hillary Clinton last Tuesday. If Senator Clinton's goal was to "hard-foul" and deliver a wounded Obama and battle-tested tactics to use against him to the Republicans, she succeeded.
A side note: an additional cost to be calculated in all of this has been the price paid by Senator Clinton's husband, the former President. Once revered by many Democrats, despite the series of scandals and "triangulations" that characterized his Administration, Bill Clinton today appears reduced to a campaign heavy and hatchet man. It is not at all becoming, and more than a little sad.
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
So tell us, James, are you professional poll-takers supposed to be impartial?
Are they supposed to at least maintain a veneer of impartiality?
Just asking.
He's not the pollster -- that's John, who I think is his brother.
Mr. Zogby is still trying to compensate for his lousy polls! How about the rest of you Hillary fans? Are you enjoying the squealing and whining from the Bambi camp as much as I am? They don't seem to be handling how the press has turned on them very well, now do they? It was great fun when the junior senator was the media darling, but the shoe seems to be causing huge blisters now that it's on the other foot!
this is a different Zogby, moron.
Now that I've looked at his bio, I see that he's prominent in the pro-Arab community. And he's for Obama. That's even better.
I wouldn't say I'm enjoying it but it is kind of satisfying to see mr inevitable come down to earth where the rest of us, uninitiated, live.
No, I think it's awful, really. Seeing them apologize and blame HIllary for his aide's horrible gaffe today was a bit more than I could stomach.
I wouldn't gloat too much, this race isn't over and Obama had a huge landslide victory today. You may be wearing egg on your face this summer, we'll see.
It looks like Obama is going to win more delegates out of Texas, now. She's not beginning some comeback. She doesn't have momentum. She essentially split a couple of contests that should have highly favored her if you consider the demographics. Tuesday 3/4 was a draw. Her "wins" aren't wins at all. She's merely holding steady at ~140-150 delegates behind Obama.
All of which makes clear that her attacks on Obama's fitness for office are not part of a realistic strategy to come into the convention with a plurality of delegates, but rather an attempt to elect McCain president so she can run again in 2012.
She'll lose the Texas popular vote too, when the counting is done. Obama won Texas. Unfortunately, Republicans there salvaged her campaign in the primary. 8% of the primary vote were Republicans voting for her. She would have dropped out if she lost Texas in the Tuesday night news cycle.
Good analysis. And to Obama's credit, he had the good grace today to denounce the negative comments of his advisor (Samantha Power) and apologize to all the monsters out there who might have understandably been offended by the outrageous comparison.
LMAO! Yes, I feel for the monsters out there also.
Brace for it, Mr. Zogby. You are now going to be classed as a hater. I give it ten comments before someone plays the misogyny card.
Me? I agree with you completely.
Sad...but true.
Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton may have won three of four primaries last Tuesday, gaining needed momentum for her flagging campaign, but in the end the cost of these wins may prove too high.
Still. Only in the world of perpetual MSM spin can a candidate who had a 20 point lead in Ohio, who then wins by 16 points be seen as "gaining momentum". Only in the world of perpetual MSM spin can a candidate who had a 20 point lead in Texas, who then wins by only 4 points - 4! be reported and accepted as "gaining momentum". She's only "gained momentum" because that's what she and the MSM want us to believe. So they can both keep this destructive horserace going. How is it GAINING momentum to LOSE points? Yes, she won. But those of us paying attention already expected her to win, only by more. Where's the momentum here, other than in the Media's and Clinton's minds and spin?
That's so true...she never had momentum she had perception.
Second place Clinton? No matter how you look at it she has the majority of the popular vote. If Obama had that you'd be screaming that fact to the heavens. BTW aren't you the same Zogby who got it so wrong in New Hampshire? You may not be so great at polling but you sure have a nerve!
Dude, she doesn't have the popular vote-------even if you counted the original Florida vote she will not end up with the popular vote. My God--go look it up, man.
Obam leads in popular vote, and these four states have not released their popular vote: Iowa, Washington, Maine, and Nevada. Obama won 3 out of 4 of these states. His popular vote lead is larger than is being reported.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/democratic_vote_count.html
"As a result, following primaries, it now appears that about one-fifth of those who voted for Barack Obama have been so angered by these negative tactics that they would be hard-pressed to support Clinton if she were the nominee"
Add me to that one fifth! (And I bet its a lot bigger chunk than one-fifth!!)
Make that 1/5 plus 2
Count me in too!
I don't think he realizes there are more Obama supporters that would be turned off to Hillary than vice versa. Its more like 1/3 of Obama supporters and 1/7 of Hillary supporters won't vote for the other candidate.
The Clintons and their campaign is beyond depressing and she might want to admit openly that she is a republican and run for their party's nomination the next time around after her hero McCain has completed his one term presidency.
I completely concur with Countess's post. Hillary Clinton is a Republican, but she cannot run as a Republican because they would never vote for her. So, she is running a slash and burn campaign as a Democrat while praising her Republican opponent over her Democratic rival. This will ensure that John McCain will become our next president. At least Joe Lieberman is now an Independent! She is just like him. In fact, she campaigned to get HIM re-elected as an Independent.
All the lies and slander have certainly turned me off! I will NEVER vote for Hillary Clinton as president. We have endured eight long years of George Bush and his lies and secrecy and I cannot endure four or eight more from a person that it is becoming increasingly difficult to tell apart from Bush. Maybe it is expected in American politics today for the gloves to come off, but Obama's campaign has the right idea about America needing a change from the old way of doing things. Do we really need all this ugliness to elect a president. If Hillary Clinton becomes president, nothing, and I mean NOTHING will change.
I think she's run a very clean campaign. He's just misstepped a lot in the last 2 weeks.
You so crack me up.
Framing Obama in NAFTAgate
Attack 3am ads when she herself has no experience
Muslim smear photos
Trying to steal Michigan and Florida
Having Bill play the race card
"Obama is not a Muslim, that I know of"
The granddaddy of them all...........endorsing McCain
AnnCoulter- make your claim that she hasn't run a negative campaign. Being deaf, dumb and blind is no excuse!
Loading comments…
Posted March 7, 2008 | 05:00 PM (EST)