Howard's Endgame
It's been widely reported that tomorrow's primaries are do or die for the Clinton camp. Even a modest win to the four-state contest might not provide enough justification for continuing the fight into Pennsylvania.
Overall, the trend has not been Hillary's friend these past few weeks. In what seems to have become a pattern, Obama has risen in the Texas, Ohio and Rhode Island polls as voters look at the candidates more closely. State-by-state and round-by-round, Obama has shown a knack for eclipsing Senator Clinton in the final few days before voters head to the polls
Another trend that must surely be troubling for the Clinton camp is Hillary's steadily eroding lead among superdelegates. In the last twenty days, Senator Clinton's superdelegate lead has been cut in half and current trending shows no sign of reversing or even leveling.
While a modest victory across the board tomorrow might slow Clinton's decay on the superdelegate front, there is yet another matter which surely must be weighing on the mind of Senator Clinton.
As DNC Chairman, Howard Dean was able to hand pick seventy-five superdelegates. Looking at how these supers are currently aligned reveals what sort of influence Mr. Dean could have in the event that the nomination battle goes the whole way to Denver. As of this writing, within Senator Clinton's current lead of forty-seven, there are about twenty-five supers who were chosen by Dean himself. Furthermore, of the approximately 290 superdelegates who have yet to endorse a candidate, twenty-four of them were named by Dean..
While these superdelegates weren't chosen simply as proxies for Dean and are free to vote as they wish, one would have to expect that Dean could influence a considerable number of them in the event that the battle for the nomination seemed headed for the convention floor. Given the subtext of the DLC/DNC conflicts outlined by Ari Berman of The Nation on February 28, the current Clinton lead of forty-seven would appear to be more theoretical than practical.
If Obama maintains his lead in pledged delegates and Dean subsequently throws his support behind him in the interest of avoiding a floor fight and upholding voter will, even a modest estimate of changes in support by Dean's supers would show a significant reduction of Clinton's current lead.
For instance, we could conservatively estimate that if such a scenario came to pass a third of Dean's supers currently supporting Clinton would change their allegiance and that at least three quarters of those currently not pledged would back the senator from Illinois (again, this is all assuming Obama's lead holds in pledged delegates and Dean actively supports him at the convention).
Those actions alone would further reduce Clinton's lead among supers to about twenty. To maintain even that margin she would have to break even with the 265 or so supers who have yet to endorse a candidate. Although one might wonder how many supers who didn't endorse Senator Clinton when she was ahead in the polls by twenty percent would want to endorse her now.
So the Clinton plan of a superdelegate firewall to push her over the top is something akin to a loan against fool's gold. It has helped, through the month of February, to preserve some sense of competitiveness in a race that is trending increasingly toward Obama. And that has probably had some practical payoff in terms of turning out the vote. But anything less than a sweeping victory tomorrow will render it almost impossible for her to close the gap on Barack Obama to the point where Howard Dean is unable to prevent an attempt to usurp the nomination.
Dean has been mostly quiet on the matter of superdelegates, but on February 5th he said, "The idea that we can afford to have a big fight at the convention and then win the race in the next eight weeks, I think, is not a good scenario... if we don't,[have a nominee before the convention] then we're going to have to get the candidates together and make some kind of an arrangement." While the concept of an 'arrangement' conjures up those all too familiar images of a smoke filled back room, this comment might be read as serving two purposes:
First, it allayed the fears of rank-and-file voters that they will see the unraveling of their party at the convention. Second it could have been a hint to the supers themselves that the matter probably won't be in their hands because Dean and his 75 superdelegates would have the voters' collective back if push came to shove.
There were a number of forces at work in early February. Clinton looked vulnerable. Obama seemed more viable. The press was awakening to the fact that the superdelegates might very well decide the nomination. Prior to that, Clinton's lead among the supers had held steady at somewhere around 100. But in the the days after Super Tuesday, the erosion in her edge began.
There can be no doubt that Clinton's dwindling lead is largely attributable to the forces of public opinion of and public awareness about superdelegates that were unleashed in the days just before and just after Super Tuesday. But it seems reasonable to believe that Dean's comments and his potential influence over the supers he nominated helped to encourage a few supers to start lining up behind Obama. After all, it might be one thing for Clinton loyalists to gear up for a fight that they had some hope of winning. But to incur the political risk of what will likely be nothing more than a 'failed coup' is probably too much to ask of folks who will presumably wish to maintain what influence they have within the party and the public sphere.
So while Clinton seems prepared to fight through to Pennsylvania and beyond, it's more likely that without large victories by her tomorrow, the book will be closed on the primary by the end of the week. And if I'm wrong about that, we can expect one of the most contentious conventions in party history.
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
What the election of Barack Obama as president would mean most profoundly is the death of the "Southern Strategy" that the Pukes have been killing the country with for the past forty years!
They would then have to come up with a new way to divide the country, or retreat to the marginalized, regional, fringe party that they are in reality.
hillary would allow for this "divide and conquer" routine to continue. It is no fault of hers, but it is, in effect, true.
The genius of Howard Dean is to implement the "Fifty State Strategy"....to nationalize our elections and government; and to put the Dixiecrats, the Repukes, the Racist Repo's under the rocks where they belong.
I would appreciate it if you would post the reasoning which led to the conclusion stated in your first sentence.
What is a large margin of victory for Clinton in Tx and OH? If she wins 3 of the 4 states, she will have momentum. Who is to say that this momentum will not turn the next batch of states around to her? Her people will scream that only she can carry the "big" states.
The other factor is Republicans intentionally voting for her to eliminate Obama as the real competition for McCain. That could begin to take on real proportions, if RLimbaugh has any say in the matter. That's why Hillary is in such a good mood. She sees her chance, she's sees Obama's vulnerabilities (the Canadian memo, the trial in Chicago, his lack of a fighting spirit) and will milk them for all they're worth. Obama should have put out a last minute ad in Tx, strongly denouncing her most recent attacks, especially the Canadian affair - that the Tory government leaked the false story to help the Repubs here, etc. But he didn't. Texas and Ohio men love a good fight. I think he has been broadsided, he didn't see it coming. That's where he is, indeed, inexperienced. It will cost him a lot. Who's to say how much?
Well, she actually won Ohio and Rhode Island. Obama appears to have won the Texas caucus and Hillary won the primary - by offsetting margins. Hillary's net earned delegate gain from the night was probably 15 or so - hardly enough to cut significantly into his 150+ margin. And the only way she even did that well was by very unethical negative advertising (one Ohio radio spot misrepresenting itself and an Associated Press news story, for example).
If Hillary had been able to hold the leads she had in Texas and Ohio only two weeks ago, she may hav been able to give herself a legitimate shot at beating Obama on earned delegates. But she failed to do that.
Hillary has no real hope of passing him on earned delegates, so her only hope is to have some combination of superdelegates who will overturn the voters' wishes and some party concession to change the rules in Florida and Michigan. In other words, she has no hope except back room deals to reverse the actual primary results. She won't get it. The party needs to realize that and push her out of the race.
Are the Democrats going to take on the Republican machine with their "B" team in CA, NY, FL, MA, NJ, NV ,NM, AZ, TN ,TX, OH? I don't think so.Without the Sun Belt and the Rust Belt and the Water Belt the Republicans will win.A Democrat who can't win the Democratic ticket in those states will not beat a liberal Republican.
Well, I think we are going to disagree on this but the flaw that I perceive in your argument is that it is Obama who is winning the 'purple demographic'. Heck, this is one of Hillary's talking points. She is pointing out that she is winning among registered dems and Obama's margin of victory is coming from cross-over voters
So to argue that he is incapable of winning, for instance' Ohio simply because Senator Clinton beats him by a few points there is to ignore that he appears to have more appeal among independents and Republicans which would be a strong indicator of a candidates ability to win that state.
And in general I am confused by the argument that Obama can't win the red states because they are solidly red but that he will lose states like MA, CA, NY and NJ which have been solidly blue. If you are going to assume that the historically red states will stay red, don't you also have to assume that the historically blue states will stay blue?
BS we could run our mascot, the jackass, and win NY, CA, MA, NJ. Hillary won NM by 1 percent and when did it become a state that matters. It seems the only states that matter to you Hillaryites are states that she won. Based on your post we should not have even bothered to hold caucuse or primaries in AL, AK, CO, CT, DE, DC, GA, HI, ID, IL, IA, KS, LA, ME, MD, MN, MO, NE, ND, SC, UT, VA, WA, and WI. We could just save the money and hold primaries in states we win by 25 percent.
BTW below is email that I sent out last night to 200 African Americans. I also posted it at MSNBC Hardball, CNN Situation Reports, and several local newspapers.
CLINTON CAMPAIGN MISCHIEF, PAY ATTENTION
I am writing this to you to make sure you are paying attention. The Clinton campaign is up to no good. I need you to read this and forward it or cut and paste it in messages to your own personal email groups. When you send encourage the recipients to do likewise.
As most of you know I have been very active for some time in what is going on with this year’s Presidential Campaign (I do spend a portion of my leisure time on sites like the Huffington Post and Politico.com). Although I supported Senator Obama’s campaign since last Spring what has happened has exceeded what was at the beginning only a possibility. He has now managed to accumulate an insurmountable lead in “PLEDGED” Delegates. PLEDGED Delegates are delegates that are achieved through the election processes of the primaries and caucuses. As of today, March 3rd , 2008, Senator Obama has 1193 Pledged Delegates. Senator Clinton has 1038 Pledged Delegates. On the surface a net of plus 155 delegates does not appear insurmountable. But because of the way delegates are allocated a lead of even 75 delegates is a significant feat.
Which brings me to the urgency of this email and why we have to spread the word through email, at church, at the barbershop and beauty shop, on campuses, at the club (Walmart), to other family members and friends. The Clinton campaign has also figured this out. In order for the Clinton campaign to catch up in “PLEDGED” delegates they would need to win the remaining 16 contests of margins greater than 20 percent. It is not likely that she will not even win contest that she is currently favored in, PA, WV, KY, IN, Puerto Rico, and Guam by more than 10 percent. Thus her campaign has come up with the argument to the media that they have won states that matter. Mind you they get to determine the states that matter. Through this spin of the facts they get the press to help them argue this and thus provide cover to STEAL the nomination through the so called superdelegates. There are some indications that some of the news pundits are giving in to the pressure and spinning by the Clinton campaign. Joe Scarborough (MSNBC Morning Joe) is trumpeting all the Clinton talking points now. Following the last primaries and caucuses on February 19th it was generally agreed that she would need “blow out” wins to win the nomination. Now the Clinton campaign is making the argument that they just need to win Ohio and Pennsylvania by any margin to justify the superdelegates GIVING her the nomination and therefore STEALING it from Obama.
Let me first say if Hillary can do the unthinkable and close Obama’s lead to around 25 “PLEDGED” delegates then in my opinion she has a plausible case for the nomination and we should support her. But if she does not and the superdelegates STEAL the nomination from Senator Obama we must let the Democratic Party know we are not taking it and will SIT THIS ELECTION OUT. They need to know that we will not only lose the Presidential Campaign but other down ticket elections also if they go through with such Shenanigans. We have been the most loyal of all constituencies to the Democratic Party. In General Elections we vote anywhere from 80 percent up for the Democratic candidate. Here is where we draw the line and again I urge you to disseminate this email and begin to talk about it in your own respective circles so that the Democratic Party knows we are watching with OUR EYES WIDE OPEN.
The Republican party leadership must be licking their chops. Not only could they get their preferred opponent at the top of the Democratic ticket in Clinton, she'll have arrived there by splitting the Democratic party. Combined with the Democratic Congress' double-crossing voters in the 2006 election by ignoring what they were voted into office to do, suddenly, a Republican sweep of both the Presidency and the Congressional elections becomes a real possibility.
On the theory that things will have to get a lot worse before they'll get better, another 4, 8, or 16 years of Republican one-party rule might do the trick. Wonder what we'll call the new opposition party after the Democrats go out of business? Whigs? Federalists? Hell's Angels?
why not just call it the OBAMA Party???
Hillary & Bill are a disgrace to the Democratic Party. Now that she mishandled her campaign, she wants to renege on the Florida & Michigan agreements, and she is considering suing the State of Texas depending on today's outcome. I realize this will probably be a shocker to her should she not do well in Texas, but it's not the people or the party that is to blame for her shortcomings. She is beginning to look really foolish and the longer this continues, the more she looks unpresidential.
And by the way, I am not too concerned about the 3 AM phone call. It was probably just Bill letting Hillary know that he was shacked up for the night and would be home later in the morning.
dean
ROFLMAO!
It seems that Howard Dean and the "elders" are reading the tea leaves correctly. And I agree with VegasDem below.
BHO brings Iowa, New Mexico and Colorado all very much into play. This obsession with the home run states could cost the Democrats the November general election.
Texas went 23% to Bush in 2004. Democrat in 2008? Not likely. Florida 5% and VA by 7% for Bush in '04. Chances slightly better for the Dems. True, Ohio for Bush by only 2% in 2004, but McCain seems to be strong there, unsettlingly so.
Iowa and NM both went to Bush by less than third plus fourth party votes, less than 1%. Colorado appears to be threatening to return to the blue column. They total 21 electoral votes, 1 more than Ohio, enough to tip the electoral balance.
HRC has tried to insult the small states, even after winning NM, while BHO might have the better ground game in these smaller states. Richardson (VP?) could help in both NM and Colorado. This addiction to Ohio and Florida has cost the Democrats dearly. I don't think it is so far fetched to look elsewhere at changing demographics and to independent voters.
I find both BHO and HRC attractive and objectionable. But I keep coming back to this: Barack Obama is, as defined early in his adult life, a community organizer. That skill set seems to be working for him and maybe for us.
It looks like a potential worst case scenario today. Hillary's late bounce Sunday-Monday in TX and OH from he "kitchen sink" attack campaign may have paid off. What this means is possibly a 2-4 point win in TX and a 5-8 point win in OH.
The only outcome that will accomplish is prolonging the mudslinging. best case scenario is she picks up 15-20 delegates. So now Obama has 130-140 delegate lead. He probably takes WY and MS and picks up a few delegates. Then, say she wins PA 55-45 and he wins NC 55-45 (based on last week's polling). That's practically a wash, as they are very similar sized. By my estimation, the remaining states are relatively small and will probably split fairly evenly between them.
Barring a complete collapse by either, which I do not see, we will sitting in June with Obama up somewhere in the 110-150 range in pledged delegates. I don't see any "best case" scenario for Clinton where there is any feasible way for her to get that below 100. I am basing this on the primary/caucus lineup in RealClearPolitics.
Is she going to attempt a superdelegate coup at that point?? Does she believe that will work? And whether it does or not, has she considered the good of the Party here? Put aside the acrimony for a minute and let's talk about the real nuts and bolts here.
In my opinion, she needed to win TX and OH both by 20 point margins to stay viable in any way, shape are form. Other than to take 2 tight victories and spin them as huge wins just to propel herself forward and pray for a miracle. I'm just sayin'...
OOPs. Typos in first P "her "kitchen sink", not he kitchen... and last P "shape or form" , not are shape.
My bad.
But a 2-4 point win in Texas and a 5-8 point win in Ohio won't net her more than 6 or 7 delegates - not nearly enough to start to erase a 157 delegate lead (and that assumes Rhode Island and Vermont net out zero gain/loss for both candidates, which is optimistic from Hillary's standpoint). The simple facts are that she has to win the remaining contests 60/40+ (and that includes some states where Obama is likely to win outright) in order to close the gap, and it's just not realistic. She just can't do it. She let him get too big of a lead and she lost when he was running the table after Feb 5.
I basically agree with you in my post. I am just trying to throw the most optimistic view possible for her and she still can't crack 100+ delegate lead that I can see.
Everyone who thinks Hillary Clinton will win more swing states in a general election is insane.
She'll run the same stupid strategy as the last two nominees, where it will come down to one state. We'd have to hope that she could squeak by and end up with 274 electoral votes or something like that. You guys all seem to forget how many people who are not democrats dislike Hillary. This is not a false notion, there are millions upon millions of people who would make a trip to the polls just to vote against her. Obama would win all these so called "more important" states that Hillary barely won in the primary season with absolute ease. Plus, he brings more states into play than she does and forces McCain to spend resources in a number of places instead of just one or two. Obama would win Ohio in the general. Obama would win Missouri in the general. Obama would win Michigan in the general. He might even win Kansas, or at least force McCain to spend money there. Likewise in Pennsylvania and Florida.
I like Hillary. I volunteered for her husband both elections, but please don't forget that she is a major lightning rod. We don't need to take the chance because we have a better candidate in Obama for this particular political climate.
The Clintons have dragged the democratic party into a slime pit from which it will be very hard to extricate itself. Their campaign is beyond depressing and is now so toxic there is little hope to present a united progessive force against republicans in november. It is now clear that there are two democratic parties one of which is very pro-war and ready to exploit racial and religious differences in order to win and the other progressive side which refuses to enlist the reactionary democrats preferring instead to offer positive reasons to vote for their candidate. Should the pro-war Hillary faction win there will be little to choose from come november.
That's a very interesting post by Mark. And that's a great insight into the notion that, after today, there's going to be a big tide of superdelegates toward Obama unless Hillary wins Texas and Ohio big enough to show that she has a reasonable path toward more earned delegates than Barack (and no, you can't count MI and FL - the only reasonable scenario there is to re-vote those with DNC backing and that's not going to happen). The reality is that the delegate math just won't work for Hillary. For her to pick up enough earned delegates to overtake Barack's 157 lead, she'd have to blow him out in state after state, and she'd have to start with Texas and Ohio with 60/40 wins. That may sound unreasonable, but she had polling in that area only 3 weeks ago, but, like he always does, Barack has closed the gap and may have even passed her.
At this point, it's all about the earned delgates. The Clinton notion that she'll get enough supers to overturn the voters might work if she had a deficit of 20 delegates, but with a deficit of 100+ going into the convention, which she almost certainly will be facing barring a huge turn-around, she just can't win. After today, there's going to be tremendous pressure to push this thing to a conclusion because Hillary's negative campaigning is going to hurt the Democratic party in November. So after today, lots of supers are going to commit to Barack. That's the only reasonable way this can go. Mark's post serves to provide a practical insight into the party internals that will initiate that superdelegate migration toward Barack.
I think Hillary will drop out this week. She knows she can't win, she knows she's spending time and money on a lost cause, and that's just the way it is. She and her supporters are going to be unhappy, but it's her own fault - she just didn't have a contingency plan for a big wave of Obama momentum just before Super Tuesday that evened up the score on that big day, and then carried through to win 11 straight contests later. Why she didn't get out there and contest those, we'll never know - but her strategy just wasn't sufficient.
Although I just read an article where Gov Crist of Florida says Florida would pay for the re-do if it is what the Dem Party wants. Clinton would fare well there - lots of old ladies who vote. If a similar solution is granted by Gov Granholm (sp?) in MIchigan, a state that Clinton would also do well in, this is still wide open.
Reality check: Michigan is an Obama state. That is why Clinton's surrogates in Michigan are trying to block a revote there.
Michigan Superdelegates Tense As March 4 Primaries Near
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dan-treul/michigan-superdelegates-t_b_89110.html
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Brewer has been heavily criticized for his organization's bungling of its primary, and, like Gov. Granholm, is quietly resisting calls for a "do-over" - a caucus that analysts predict would heavily favor Obama.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Hillary's only chance of winning the nomination is to seat Michigan WITHOUT a re-vote because she would net at least 70 delegates since Obama wasn't even on the ballot. If they have a revote, Obama is likely to win which is why Hillary's people are trying to block it.
But even in the unlikely event that Hillary wins a re-vote in Michigan, she would only gain a handful of delegates, not the 70 or more she would get from the unfair and unofficial primary.
I essentially agree with you that Obama has become the establishment candidate of the DNC. However, if Obama can't close the deal in Ohio--a key battleground state--the superdelegate migration from Clinton to Obama may well freeze until the PA results. How can we have a nominee who can't win large, rust-belt, swing states?
Here is the problem with your logic: Primaries in no way, shape or form reflect General Elections. Where do you think the vast majority of Huckabee and Romney voters are going to end up? With Clinton or Obama? Dream on.
Same with the vast majority of Dem voters, notwithstanding the venom on blogs, the rank and file will fall behind their nominee. You MUST reach the independents. Period.
Who do we really think will do that more effectively?? I submit theresults so far in states where independents vote should tell you the answer: Obama.
Here's your problem some Republicans and independents are right now voting for Obama because they can in certain states but this week just touched the tip of the iceberg on Obama (more to come) and in the end John McCain wins !!!!! 4 more years of Republicans! It's going to be UGLY
Obama would of course win in NY and NJ and CA and MA in the general election and he would make McCain spend big $$$$ in the 'safe' red states which he's already won in the primaries. the 50 state strategy is not in Hill's playbook - she'd lose them all w/o McCain having to lift a finger to fight her off. this clearly makes Obama the only candidate who represnts ALL democrats, not just those in the safe 'blue states.
It seems to me that the candidate who won NewYork,California,Florida and the Sun Belt will leave it up to the Super Delegates to tell those states that other states are more important in a general election where winner takes all the electoral college votes.Hillary is not going to throw in the towel and turn her back on those major states. She will let the convention turn aside those states and ask them to reverse their vote and support Obama. The Clintons are too experienced to be made the bad guy when the most important states in a general election supported Hillary.Let Ted Kennedy and John Kerry and the party machine make the decision and the Clintons won't let them off the hook by withdrawing, since they supported Obama.If Hillary is successful today in Ohio it will become more difficult to hand the nomination to Obama
If she wins Texas then she will have won all the big Mexican states. How can Obama take on McCain without the Mexican vote in CA ,Texas and Florida and the Sun Belt since McCain supported the Mexicans etc over the border issues?Hillary well have demonstrated that she can run the Mexican Sun Belt states,CA and NY. That with Florida is nearly the general election for the Democrats. Tough choice for Super Delegates and the Clintons will insist that the Super Delegates earn their keep by not stepping aside.If only Kennedy and Kerry had kept their mouths shut Bill might have asked Hillary to step aside but not now.So Hillary must win one of the major states today to remain the most likely to defeat McCain.
what the heck are you talking about?Mexican states?are you talking about U.S. politics or Mexico's?Hillary will win Ohio barely and lose Texas,Rhode Island and Vermont and she will be pressured to withdraw and I hope she does the right thing and unite us against McCrazy...OBAMA 08
I'm an Obama supporter, but I think the most likely scenario is a very tight win for her in TX, more comfortable win in OH and a win in RI (she has led there for a long time). Obama will win in Vermont and he has a real shot in TX, but her attack ads over the weekend seem to have given her a bump and a slight lead in TX. I getr my info from RealClearPolitics. They have dozens of polls to slice and dice.
Of course, the polls have been wrong before...
One need only look at Obama's tremendous earning power and grass roots organization to know who the DNC needs. His campaign is what Dean and Kerry had prayed for but failed to earn. The DNC would be absolutely shooting themselves in the foot to throw that earning power away..but who am I to say...except they have proven themselves dumb before.
The twist and turns of the Democratic primary are interesting and hopefully Howard Dean and his advisers are paying attention. What is going to happen, more than likely as Clinton resorts to winning ugly, is that in the General Election if Mrs. Clinton is the Democratic nominee, there is going to be resentment on the part of Republicans, Independents and Democrats who are voting or wanted to vote for Obama and want change. The Republicans will happily vote for McCain. The Independents might vote for McCain. The Democrats won't vote for McCain. But here is the kicker. A lot, and I mean a lot of Democrats will NOT VOTE, period. What does this mean? For every Democrat not voting, there will be three Republicans voting against Hillary Clinton. The ones that the Republican base got riled up. Clinton will not be able to get the full support of the Democratic party. It really is a no win situation for the Democratic Party, given this circumstances. And this is the truth.
As far as campaigning, momentum and the popular vote. Clinton and Obama have almost equal popular votes. Including Florida. Obama has 11,028,141 of the Popular vote and Clinton has 10,739,665. A differential of 400,000, for Obama. But, what has to be taken into consideration is that Hillary Clinton’s momentum in the popular vote as stagnated since February 5. A bulk of her popular vote tally came on or before the 5th. Whereas, with Obama much of his popular vote shows a strength and gain after February 5, Giving him the lead in total popular vote. This is significant.
This shows momentum.
As for those arguing about Clinton winning California and New York. Each candidate received over 2 million votes in California. with Clinton winning just by 400,000. Not a big differential. He will win California, if the nominee. Same in New York, where almost 2 million votes were cast, she only beat him by 300,000 votes. In his state of Illinois, he beat her by a difference of over 700,000. Basically, in the Big states he lost to Clinton, Blue States, like California and NY, he will win in the General Election because Clinton did not overwhelming beat him there.
I'm with you on this one, DM. I keep trying to convince myself to support the Dem nominee, but these last couple of weeks have me thinking Hillary is just too slimy. Not that McCain is better, war hero or not. I hate to say it, because I know the people who would suffer the most are the troops, but I don't think I could pull a lever for her. I'm done with the triangulation.....
hey whoever the democratic nominee is, he, or she is going to win those big blue states, what obama and dean know, is that this year the democrats have to make every state count, even if obama does not carry idaho or kansas, he will force the republicans to spend time and money in them. if hillary is the democratic nominee, mccain can afford to spend time and money in ohio and pennsylvania, and other critical must win states. obama and dean's fifty state strategy is the only way for the democrats to win.
Sure Obama will win the big, reliably blue states like NY and CA. But what about Ohio? Can he win there? Or will Ohio go for McCain? For that matter, will PA go for McCain?
Obama-supporters who think he's so pristine that they can't imagine soiling their hands by voting for Hillary might consider that in November they can console themselves when McCain beats their guy by saying, "well, I would have voted for McCain, too, had Hillary won."
So...I guess it really doesn't matter. If McCain is a good second-choice to Obama, it's all good if Ohio and PA and other battleground states tip to the GOP in November.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
