The Post-Pennsylvania Questions
By Josh Kardon of Portland, Oregon. Josh is the chair of the Oregon Steering Committee for Hillary Clinton for President. Previously, Josh contributed "Why I support Senator Hillary Clinton for President". [Editor's note: Josh is also Senator Ron Wyden's chief-of-staff, though Senator Wyden has not endorsed any candidate for President.]
January 8. February 5. March 4. Three dates. Three opportunities for Barack Obama to close the deal and solidify his status as the presumptive Democratic nominee. And three failures. New Hampshire, Super Tuesday, and Ohio/Texas were each points in this race when, against all odds, Hillary Clinton won. She was outspent -- sometimes by margins of 4-to-1. Political pundits predicted her demise and sharpened their epitaths. But Hillary prevailed.
April 22. Another missed Obama opportunity, another Hillary win. Another sign that one candidate has considerable strengths in must-win swing states, while the other isn't getting it done. At what point do activist Democrats acknowledge that Hillary's support is both wide and deep with the very voters who, together, can provide the long-elusive margin of victory for Democrats in the '08 presidential campaign?
Candidates outspending their opponents by over 3-to-1 give the winner's speech on election night 999 times out of a thousand. Candidates receiving months of embarrassingly one-sided coverage from progressive blogs, and a to-die-for, election-eve interview and a wink from kingmaker, Jon Stewart, are supposed to cruise to victory. But Hillary again demonstrated extraordinary strength with working class voters, Latinos, women, and Catholics, despite Obama's extraordinary material advantages. These voters, Hillary's voters, are the cornerstones to victory in essential swing states.
As we begin the primary contest in Oregon, Democrats need to also turn an eye toward the general election on the horizon. It's time to ask how someone who hasn't been able to win any of the battleground states of Ohio, Pennsylvania, or Florida in a primary expects to carry them in a general election. How can Senator Obama spend that much money and not close the deal? What does it say about Sen. Obama's viability as the Democratic nominee when he outspent Hillary by over 3-to-1 – much of that on fairly typical negative ads and negative mail – and still lost yet another must-win swing state? Is Sen. Obama truly "the One" (Oprah's words, not mine) or, in fact, another very talented, decent politician whose relative inexperience makes him the second best opponent against John McCain in November?
Obviously, Hillary started the Oregon primary with some catching up to do, and that process began three weeks ago. I want Oregon to know that Hillary intends to compete and compete vigorously in our state. If you are sick of losing in November and want to work for the candidate who is best prepared for this immensely complex job on Day 1, please check out our website and volunteer to canvass, call, or participate in house parties. Help select the Democrat with the best shot of winning back the White House. We have thousands of Oregon volunteers to keep you company, and as Hillary proved once again in Pennsylvania -- because ours is the Democratic Party -- a lot of people power can overcome a whole lot of money.
If you want change, there is one date on your calendar that should have the biggest, boldest, circle around it -- November 4. Who is best prepared to get the job done on November 4?
|
April 23, 2008 |
guest column | Comments (156 so far)
| Share on Facebook |
Sponsored Advertising
Comments
Posted by: Taylor M | Apr 23, 2008 9:19:51 AM
A lot of people can overcome a lot of money!
Almost 1.5 million people have donated to the Obama campaign with an average of 95 dollar contributions; Obama's come from nowhere to be 300 delegates from snagging the nomination over the most well-known Democratic candidate since 1940; he slices in half her 22 point PA lead; and yet, according to Josh, she's got the people!
Ladies and gentlemen, Josh Kardon, Oregon's own Mark Penn!
Posted by: torridjoe | Apr 23, 2008 9:25:42 AM
Josh, does Ron know you get high? In what world does a contest where one candidate goes from a 20+ point lead to an 8 point lead, qualify as some amazing comeback?
If you compare Ohio to Obama, he continues to eat away at Clinton's base demographics in a number of areas. From Kos:
Obama's percent of the vote:
OH PA
60 and older 28 38
White 34 38
White men 39 44
White women 31 34
Less than $50K 42 46
No college 40 38
College 51 49
Catholic 36 31
Protestant 36 53
And now that it's over and she didn't register the resounding victory she needed, her defeat in states, primaries, popular vote, and pledged delegates are sealed. The ONLY way she can win is by destroying another Democrat.
Posted by: Josh Kardon | Apr 23, 2008 9:33:57 AM
Taylor M - no need to get personal. I neither work for Burson nor any other pr firm, nor for any corporations. I am a volunteer for Hillary, one of the thousands of progressive, loyal Democrats who have now signed up to help Hillary in Oregon.
Yes, Senator Obama used his massive financial advantage and his dedicated volunteers to cut into Hillary's lead in PA. That's what money buys. But why couldn't he win with that gaudy advantage? And why did she start with a lead in the first place?
Do you dispute the underlying premise of my post - that Sen. Obama has lost the swing states to his poorer opponent?
Posted by: Josh Kardon | Apr 23, 2008 9:37:56 AM
As for you, TJ, I don't get high, though if I did, I'm sure I would find Senator Obama quite intoxicating. I'm pretty sober, actually.
While I'm a huge fan of Kos, please don't seriously ask me to respond to their objective coverage of the Clinton-Obama contest.
Posted by: Nick Wirth | Apr 23, 2008 9:39:13 AM
Josh, the primary election and the general election are actually two different things. By your logic, Bill Clinton in 1992 should have lost in the general election:
Iowa
Colorado
Maryland
Delaware
Vermont
New Hampshire
Massachusetts
Connecticut
Rhode Island.
After all, he didn't win any of the primaries in those states...
And come on, "kingmaker" Jon Stewart? I'm not sure that you're spinning this enough.
Posted by: Jeff Alworth | Apr 23, 2008 9:49:02 AM
Here's some alternate spin:
January 3. Hillary decided to half-contest Iowa, spending a lot of time there, but failing to put together the ground game that would have put her over the top. She finished third--something Obama has never done.
Feb 5. Obama again demonstrates judgment and leadership by correctly assessing how to win the campaign. Recognizing that this would be a fight of delegates, not "momentum," he goes after the small caucus states and surges in front of Hillary.
Feb 12 and 19. Demonstrates he can win white, working-class voters.
Obama may have lost Pennsylvania, but by virtue of bringing so many new voters in, he's made it much more likely to be a Democratic state in November. Local politicians running for office owe him a huge debt for that and, since many are superdelegates, this will be a factor in the election.
The numbers still tell a fuller picture. Obama has won more states, more delegates, and more votes. He has brought new voters into the Democratic party that will make Dems far stronger in November. Hillary, with a constituency of older voters, isn't building for the future, she's hanging on to a dying cohort. If you want to build the party and begin to establish a governing coalition, the choice is pretty clear.
Posted by: Garrett | Apr 23, 2008 9:51:29 AM
And why did she start with a lead in the first place?
Were you born under a rock or have you forgot the last 16 years of Hillary Clinton being in the spotlight? She has name recognition.
Posted by: Jonathan | Apr 23, 2008 9:52:18 AM
1. There is no correlation to winning a primary and winning a state in the general election. This has been shown over and over.
2. Obama may have outspent Clinton, but Clinton also had the PA democratic establishment on her side, and has the name recognition of an incumbent. Obama was able to cut a deficit above 20% to less then 10%.
3. Obama cannot deliver a knock out punch because Hilary continues to carry White Women by a margin close to 66% to 34%, who made up 47% of the voters.
4. OH demographics were better for Obama then PA, and Obama did better in PA.
5. The number of new voters voting for Obama shows a lot of promise for the party in the general.
The dynamics of the race won't change. Neither candidate can deliver a knock out punch because neither candidate can make inroads with the other's base. If Hillary wins NC, that would be huge. As it is, both candidates continue to maintain the status quo in the race, which favors Obama because he is winning both in Pledged delegates and the popular vote, even if you count FL.
Posted by: DB | Apr 23, 2008 9:56:59 AM
Josh, I'd love to hear how you'd spin this explanation of why she won.
Posted by: joel dan walls | Apr 23, 2008 9:59:38 AM
January 8. February 5. March 4. Three dates. Three opportunities for Barack Obama to close the deal and solidify his status as the presumptive Democratic nominee. And three failures.
Wow, some amazingly pathetic spinmeistering going on here, Mr Kardon. Have you ever heard of a candidate named Hillary Clinton who told us all last fall, and going into the early primaries, how she was going to wrap things up on February 5? Geez Louise, it would appear that Sen. Clinton failed to "seal the deal" when she said she would. Maybe you need to write some sort of smart-ass commentary about that.
Are you suffering from selective amnesia, or simply cranking out the spin "talking points" that just showed up on your fax machine?
Candidates receiving...a wink from kingmaker, Jon Stewart, are supposed to cruise to victory.
Jon Stewart, the host of a comedy show, is a "kingmaker"? Good Gawd, how pathetic.
Is Sen. Obama truly "the One" (Oprah's words, not mine)....?
Oh, right, I remember that, especially the CAPITAL LETTER in "One". Didn't Oprah also kiss the hem on Obama's robes?
Congratulations to Hillary Clinton on her Pennsylvania victory. Let's get on with the campaign, folks. Kardon is going to keep forwarding those talking points from his fax machine. Obama's local campaign is going to do the same thing. I'll take Kardon's arguments more seriously when they emerge from his own brain instead of from his fax machine.
Posted by: Paddy McGuire | Apr 23, 2008 9:59:39 AM
TJ,
Those same exit polls that you quote said that Obama was going to lose by 4 and he lost by 10 (even though I went to public school I know that 55 minus 45 is 10, not 8).
The exit polls have been consistently wrong in this race. Whether that's the Tom Bradley effect or not I don't know, but they have been consistently wrong. I don't think hauling out crosstabs from flawed polling teaches us much.
Posted by: xxxxx | Apr 23, 2008 9:59:50 AM
.
Stuff it. Take your BS elsewhere.
.
Why hasn't SHE sealed the deal?
.
Why is her campaign in debt and poorly-run?
.
Why is she smearing MoveOn?
.
Why is she running a dirty campaign?
.
Why is she trying to poach pledged delegates?
.
Oh that's right - Hillary's campaign is above responding with real, logical answers. Just more spin and talking point hogwash.
Posted by: Karol | Apr 23, 2008 10:01:47 AM
We also leave out the issue of appeal. Hillary - in a state she won - was shown that voters don't trust her, her tactics and maybe not her politics. Those older white men who voted for her versus Obama may just as likely vote for McCain because of their traditional views.
I'm also just disappointed. As the NY Times pointed out today, Hillary has said some pretty terrible things about her Democratic opponent and to wave the 9/11 flag, complete with Bin Laden is just so sad.
Many love Obama because he is this new style of politics that we've been waiting for. Hillary just isn't it.
Posted by: Josh Kardon | Apr 23, 2008 10:05:23 AM
Guys, I hate to break it to you, but when your candidate loses and you're out there the next day slugging away on the blogosphere to paint the rosiest possible picture, you should go easy with the "spin" word.
Jeff, yours is an interesting analysis, albeit a rather selective one. I'll be sure to alert Catholics, Latinos, working class voters, and those 60 and over that the Obama campaign considers them a "dying cohort," and not part of the party's future. I do agree that Sen. Obama deserves huge kudos for bringing new people to the party, but Hillary hasn't exactly been a slouch in that department over the years. A lot of women in the this country are unbelievably excited to finally get the chance to vote for a woman for President.
Nick, your point, which is a good one, avoids the issue I raise. My point is that, throughout this campaign, Hillary looks like she is best poised to win the coalition of voters required to win in states where we have failed in 2000 and 2004. I'm not saying Obama can't win those voters -I'm pointing out that he hasn't yet.
Posted by: Ben | Apr 23, 2008 10:05:35 AM
Do you dispute the underlying premise of my post - that Sen. Obama has lost the swing states to his poorer opponent?
Sure I do. With Obama we can see swing states like Iowa, Colorado, many NE states, and the usual swing states where he'd win in the general. He can indeed expand the map in a way Hillary cannot.
Posted by: torridjoe | Apr 23, 2008 10:05:35 AM
"While I'm a huge fan of Kos, please don't seriously ask me to respond to their objective coverage of the Clinton-Obama contest."
First off, it was a joke about Josh getting high. I was just trying to be silly/snarky, but I realize that rumor would not be helpful to a Senator's senior staffer, so let me be serious and clear: it was a joke, for those of you listening in on our stations along the line.
On point: you can argue the editorial slant of Kos' presentation, fine. What's the argument for the table of numbers? And I'll throw in this Kos-presented question for good measure: if electability is Clinton's major argument, how does that square with Obama being able to raise so much more money, and stay out of debt, and pay off his creditors?
Posted by: Randle McMurphy | Apr 23, 2008 10:12:10 AM
I am an Obama supporter, and like others posting here, I recognize that Josh is spinning events to benefit his candidate. I also recognize that he's the best at it.
Whether you support Obama or Clinton, please treat Josh with more civility and respect. The guy has done more for the progressive cause in Oregon than any non-elected I know.
Posted by: Jacoby Ellsbury | Apr 23, 2008 10:14:22 AM
"January 8. February 5. March 4. Three dates. Three opportunities for Barack Obama to close the deal and solidify his status as the presumptive Democratic nominee. And three failures. New Hampshire, Super Tuesday, and Ohio/Texas were each points in this race when, against all odds, Hillary Clinton won."
You should receive a nomination for the Jerome Armstrong Prize for Excellence in Stenography of Clinton Talking Points. It's amazing how much revisionist history you packed into a handful of words. I would agree with you that a victory by Obama in NH would likely have ended the nomination contest long ago. Super Tuesday, however, was Clinton's big failure, not his. She had big leads in many states prior to 2/5, and it was Obama's comeback in those states that resulted in more or less a draw in the division of delegates from those 2/5 primaries. By the same token, she had huge leads in TX and OH in the polls several weeks before those primaries and Obama closed the gap on her (and in the end won by delegates than she did in TX, notwithstanding her 51-49 popular vote win).
Can you or any Hillary supporter point to a single state where she increased her support from a poll of polls taken several weeks before the election to election day itself? All she does is bleed support the more people see her, time and again.
Posted by: Paddy McGuire | Apr 23, 2008 10:17:10 AM
Ben,
Okay, Iowa is a swing state that was won by Bill Clinton twice, Al Gore and lost by John Kerry. Clinton won Colorado in 92 and we've lost it every election since, so perhaps your argument works there.
But NE states? Come on. Every state from Maryland north and Pennsylvania east has been blue in every presidential election since 1992, save New Hampshire in 2000 (a state Obama lost to Clinton, completely undercutting your argument).
Posted by: Karol | Apr 23, 2008 10:18:49 AM
You know what I'm sick of? Demographics. I'm done with the classifying and reclassifying of people to help your candidate win. I'm tired of, "Oh, Obama will in North Carolina with all the Black folks," as if we can't think for ourselves. And, "Latinos automatically vote for Hillary because she's so supportive of their 'issues'," as if that's all that matters.
I fit into so many demographics, its crazy. Guess what, so do many voters. The proof is in the age. That seems to be, so far, what is holding in voting patterns. Young people like Obama, older people like Hillary.
Oh, and Josh, I'm a woman. I will not be excited to vote for Hillary if she miraculously pulls this out. But, I'm a young woman who's black, latina, working middle class, educated, Catholic - which demographic do I fit?
Posted by: Taylor M | Apr 23, 2008 10:19:58 AM
Hey Josh,
Thanks for replying to my comment. And yes, I do dispute the central theme of your post! Sen. Clinton is the poorer candidate only in terms of energy, enthusiasm, and money given to her campaign! The Clintons started this election expecting to have everything wrapped up in a few weeks. They started with money, contacts, leverage, and the most noted winning brand in the Democratic party. What other candidate, without those advantages, could survive 12 straight losses?
In a race between Obama and the Clintons, winning states like California, Ohio and PA was practically pre-ordained. Especially PA, with the excess of older, more Clinton-friendly voters who do not prefer a young black Senator from Chicago over the moost prominent elected Democrat in the country. Especially older voters, who don't have to lose friends or children in Iraq, and don't define Clinton's unabashed support for the war as a critical issue.
Look, I know your esteemed boss in the Senate got his career started advocating for seniors, and I think that's admirable. But Democrats aren't just looking for the candidate "best able to win seniors' or "best able to win the White House" in 2008. (What does that even mean right now? Obama polls better than Clinton nationally, and is more competitive everywhere but AR, OH and KY.) We're looking for someone we can trust, who won't sell us out on Iranian saber rattling and the DOMA. We're looking for someone to get us out of the pointless Red-Blue divide, not accelerate it, and run a 50-state strategy that leads to Democratic pickups in congressional districts and Governors races. If Obama can't beat McCain after eight years of Bush, then Americans deserve more of what we've got. But that isn't going to be the case, because Obama's got the integrity, ideas, and charisma- i.e. what it takes to win.
PS and thanks Josh for getting involved in the discussion on the comment thread. It's certainly appreciated.
Posted by: Jeff Alworth | Apr 23, 2008 10:22:07 AM
Josh, I don't mean to be reductionist here. Nearly as many Democrats have voted for Hillary as Barack. She's a great candidate and when she's not going negative, an asset to the party.
But I also don't want to let you off the hook on this one. While it's true that Hillary has so far outperformed Obama among Latinos, Obama has won working-class voters in other states. And looking forward, I'd love to hear a Clintonista go on record as saying that Obama would lose working class voters to McCain, who plans to fix health care by further privatizing it, and making Bush's tax cuts permanaent. That's a fight both Hillary and Obama will win.
But one consistent pattern across all the states is that Obama does better with younger voters. Pennsylvania has the second oldest electorate in the country, and fully a third of the voters in PA were sixty or older.
So, to press the point, can you make an argument why the party faithful should ignore the candidate who can build the party for the next generation in favor of the one who's support will be comprised of voters who won't be around in a generation? Leave aside my impolitic "dying cohort" comment and expand on this theme.
Posted by: Garrett | Apr 23, 2008 10:23:35 AM
Guys, I hate to break it to you, but when your candidate loses and you're out there the next day slugging away on the blogosphere to paint the rosiest possible picture, you should go easy with the "spin" word.
If that isn't the most hypocritical statement of the day I don't know what is. Clinton won PA fair and square. She blew a 20 point lead from 2 weeks ago but she crawled to the finish still ahead. If that campaign had had 1 more week she probably would have lost the way Obama was covering ground. You're on this blog trying to paint the rosiest picture possible while still ignoring the fact that she didn't get a big enough win and now she's heading into states she isn't favored to win AND she's out of money. Who is painting the rosiest picture in the blogosphere here? Let's see a hard analysis from you on what Hillary has to do to win enough delegates to have the superdelegates overcome the will of the voters without having a full fledged revolt in the party. Paint me a rosy picture on that.
Posted by: Bill R. | Apr 23, 2008 10:26:15 AM
Nice try, Josh! It doesn't cut. I suppose you are entitled to a little gloating. But, ... your candidate is broke! She has no realistic path to the nomination. She gets a win by 9 pts. She has 15 wins to Obama's 30 and suddenly you think she's going to be coronated by the supers, which will take about 80% of them. They are not impressed with her divisiveness. And if you think they are going to trump the primary results and run the party over a cliff, I don't think so.
She will lose big here in Oregon. People in Oregon don't like the Clintons. And after her statement about "obliterating Iran" I sure don't want her finger on the button. Keep her as far away from the White House as possible. Any appeals for Dem. unity seem to ring pretty hollow as she is joining forces with Richard Mellon-Scaife and his associates to swift-boat Obama in NC. So go tell your boss, Hillary, that these "activist" people she has such contempt for are unimpressed. She gets a total of 10 delegates out of this, big deal! She has to win 71% of the remaining delegates to catch up.
Posted by: Sandy | Apr 23, 2008 10:27:14 AM
Post Pennsylvania Reality Check
We Are Electing Delegates. She won, at the most, 12. Obama still leads by over 100.
Pennsylvania is also the 12th state Hillary has won. That's right, TWELVE. Obama won IA, NV and SC. They tied NH. Obama won TX. Hillary has only won 12 states. She is proposing we nominate a candidate who will have won, at the most, 15 states when this is done. Jesse Jackson won 11.
Hillary will need 67% of the remaining delegates to overtake Obama's delegate lead.
To continue to solicit money from people, based on the premise Hillary can win, is fraud as far as I'm concerned.
This has got to end.
Posted by: gfhfbv | Apr 23, 2008 10:30:31 AM
can I at LEAST get josh to ADMIT to the FACTS that hillary is LOSING in pledged delegates, the popular vote AND contests?
First you MUST fucking admit the truth and then I might listen
Posted by: Nate Currie | Apr 23, 2008 10:30:53 AM
While I wholeheartedly support Hillary's right to stay in this thing until she's mathematically eliminated (which I suspect will happen sometime in mid-June when the remaining superdelegates all get together and throw their support to Obama), I support this much in the same way I like to see a football team down 35 with six minutes to play go for the touchdown, the ensuing onside kick, and as many more points as they can get. No, they can't win, but they can salvage some pride, build for the next game, etc. The only way I would object to this is if the strategy involves deliberately maiming the opposing players. While Hillary has taken some cheap shots, she's largely been flagged for them and forced to take the penalty. Until or unless she goes nuclear, she can keep running as long as she wants...
That said, please don't come on here where people actually pay attention to these things and insult our intelligence by trying to convince us that, short of completely blowing up the entire Democratic Party, Hillary has any chance of winning this thing. We all know better, and I suspect you do too...
Posted by: kmg | Apr 23, 2008 10:30:58 AM
Personally, I think it is more important that Obama can win smaller, more rural states than Clinton saying that winning big states makes her more competitive. In the end,the bigger states will support the democratic candidate. You think California is going to go for McCain over Obama? I don't think so.
Posted by: Katy | Apr 23, 2008 10:31:10 AM
Thanks for the post Josh. I'm getting worried about the prospect of Obama in the general - he sure couldn't handle the tough questions at the debate the other night and he doesn't seem to do well with the democratic base.
I was actually suprised Clinton won by as much as she did last night, given all the $ Obama spent in Pennsylvania.
Posted by: Taylor M | Apr 23, 2008 10:35:34 AM
FYI- I think a lot of anger is explained by the fact that in the past month Hillary has netted 5 delegates on Obama's 133 delegate lead, and yet deigns to say that "the tide is turning." There's a bankable dishonesty to Clinton campaigning that just makes people who pay attention (partisan or no) very incredulous.
Posted by: helys | Apr 23, 2008 10:36:28 AM
I am disappointed that Obama didn't win Pennsylvania and finish this contest. But not only has he the best chance in November but he is the better leader for our country now. And that is the key.
As Taylor says above
"Obama's come from nowhere to be 300 delegates from snagging the nomination over the most well-known Democratic candidate since 1940; he slices in half her 22 point PA lead..."
The future of the Democratic party is in the new voters that Obama has energized. And the many people who abandoned the Democrats in disgust after Bill Clinton failed them and congressional dems sold out to special interests.
Obama will have more pledged delegates, more states and a far stronger chance of winning the presidency this summer. In dealing with attacks, he has shown his ability to stay calm and focused. He has class. Once Democrats get our heads out of our asses, we can focus on why McCain would be a disaster for this country. Take a look at the current issue of Harpers to see how he deceitfully rakes in money from special interests such as the telecoms while claiming to be independent of big money lobbyists.
It would be a big mistake for the superdelegates to abandon the majority of voters -- who have come out for them only because of Obama. Democrats will lose young voters and Black voters. They too are the core Democratic constituency and let's not forget it.
The big states will come out for Democrats if Senator Clinton truly throws her weight behind Senator Obama. I'm not suggesting she get out now. But if things don't change. If Oregon and North Carolina go to Obama -- and some of the other states too -- then she should do the right thing.
Posted by: Paul g. | Apr 23, 2008 10:38:45 AM
Josh,
You're a good loyalist but a terrible analyst.
To describe Jan 3rd as a missed opportunity for Obama to knock Clinton out of the race is such misleading revisionism that I don't see any point in going on.
Good race in PA. We'll see you in NC and IN. Good luck trying to spin a loss in Indiana.
Posted by: hgjhffvh | Apr 23, 2008 10:41:54 AM
what will katy and josh say when Hillary loses NC?
Hillary and her supporters are unashamed liars
Posted by: Jefffrane | Apr 23, 2008 10:48:30 AM
Three opportunities for Barack Obama to close the deal and solidify his status as the presumptive Democratic nominee. And three failures.
That's one of the most amazing pieces or revisionism I've seen this year. In what fantasy universe was Obama the presumptive nominee at the beginning of 2008? In this universe, Clinton has been the presumptive nominee since 2006, the "inevitable" candidate. She had all the money, all the big name endorsements and held the reins of the DLC. Clinton is the one who couldn't get it done.
My lord, if you're going to tout your candidate at least give people credit for paying attention to reality.
Posted by: James X. | Apr 23, 2008 10:50:08 AM
Clinton is losing ground among her base, out of money, in debt, and needs 71% of remaining delegates to win.
If the primary were about winning electoral votes, Obama would have changed his game to win electoral votes. But it isn't about electoral votes, so Obama played to win the game that exists. It's too bad Hillary's campaign wasn't smart enough to do the same. That's why they lost Super Tuesday: they played to win in the electoral college but there is none.
Posted by: Katy | Apr 23, 2008 11:12:29 AM
hgjhffgh, don't be angry at the supporters of Clinton because your candidate can't wrap this thing up.
Posted by: Miles | Apr 23, 2008 11:17:57 AM
First, I'd like to echo the comment above that we all need to treat Josh with more respect. Disagree with his analysis all you want, but ad hominem vitriol is a sign of a weak mind.
Second, as an Obama supporter I just can't get on the spin-mobile this time. Obama lost by 10 points after outspending Clinton 3 to 1. That is a resounding defeat. Period.
I take cold comfort in the fact that "Hillary can't win the nomination." So what? Neither can Obama win in places like Ohio and PA, contests that would have ended the race. And as PA shows, it's not for lack of trying. He is simply unable to capture large segments of the Democratic party, and his failure to do so is allowing Clinton to continue her quixotic, damaging campaign.
We have all said that Obama is running a brilliant campaign. That's no longer true. Candidates need to be able to pivot, to retool their messaging in order to win. Obama KNEW from Ohio that his message was not winning over white, working class, older Democrats. He had 7 weeks and untold millions to figure out how to convince those Democrats that he was the strongest candidate. He failed.
There are going to be dozens of places all over the country where Obama trails McCain in the general election with 7 weeks to go. If the best he can do is cut McCain's lead in half, like he did with Hillary, that's still a loss. I can only hope that Obama's campaign is taking this devastating loss seriously and figuring out what it needs to do differently in order to win.
Posted by: Evan Manvel | Apr 23, 2008 11:17:58 AM
While I was hoping the nomination race would end yesterday, in terms of political momentum it's pretty amazing that Clinton has stuck around and is winning big races (even though she started out way ahead, Obama's the clear front runner, meaning that her wins this late in the game are impressive).
Usually voters coalesce around a presumed front-runner and the races end pretty quickly. This year, not so much.
So, congrats to Clinton for winning, congrats to Obama for closing the gap and still leading. And we can all take a deep breath and let the race finish out. And focus on November 4th, where either candidate can win if work hard enough.
Posted by: LT | Apr 23, 2008 11:25:10 AM
I am so tired of hearing money is everything. If Casey and Rendell had not been involved, that might have been a valid argument. But did Obama's money trump Rendell's political machine? Is Obama the first statewide black candidate ever to lose in Penn. when parts of the state are compared to Alabama? Did Hillary win by her original 20 point lead, or closer to half that?
As far as "If you are sick of losing in November and want to work for the candidate who is best prepared for this immensely complex job on Day 1, "
this is why I have been disappointed by Hillary's campaign. As I have said to a variety of people, Obama strikes me as a combination of Eugene McCarthy and Bobby Kennedy, while Hillary reminds me of Mondale and I was part of the Hart campaign! That line sounds like straight out of the "inevitable" Mondale campaign.
Clinton folks may not like that attitude, but tough luck!
Everyone who works with kids (parents, teachers, daycare, etc.) knows the saying "Rules are rules". I am a native of Michigan, but was also part of the effort to rewrite delegate selection rules in the period from 1984-88.
And I'm sorry, Howard Wolfson, but saying Democrats should go along with the saying "the votes of 2 and a half million people should count" when nominees are selected by the number of DELEGATES chosen according to rules which many people of good will spent years working on will not gain my vote for your candidate! Part of our work re-writing rules over 20 years ago had to do with action at the convention after many people were angry at what they saw as Mondale manipulating rules--esp. in Wisconsin.
I agree with this:
Posted by: Jefffrane | Apr 23, 2008 10:48:30 AM
Three opportunities for Barack Obama to close the deal and solidify his status as the presumptive Democratic nominee. And three failures.
That's one of the most amazing pieces or revisionism I've seen this year. In what fantasy universe was Obama the presumptive nominee at the beginning of 2008?
I also agree with this:
Posted by: James X. | Apr 23, 2008 10:50:08 AM
Clinton is losing ground among her base, out of money, in debt, and needs 71% of remaining delegates to win.
If the primary were about winning electoral votes, Obama would have changed his game to win electoral votes. But it isn't about electoral votes, so Obama played to win the game that exists. It's too bad Hillary's campaign wasn't smart enough to do the same. That's why they lost Super Tuesday: they played to win in the electoral college but there is none.
Posted by: trishka | Apr 23, 2008 11:34:02 AM
He is simply unable to capture large segments of the Democratic party, and his failure to do so is allowing Clinton to continue her quixotic, damaging campaign.
i don't think that's true, actually. first of all, the segments of the democratic party which have given clinton her leads in the states she has won do not really add up to a "large" segment, by any stretch.
and secondly, a good chunk of those segments are made up of well-entrenched political machines, especially in places like PA, NJ, and LA.
the democratic machinery isn't going to up & evaporate in november when obama is the nominee.
they'll turn out for him. to say that because he can't wrest them completely away from clinton, given her establishment connections, history &c, he won't have their support in november is ludicrous.
now there may be some white democrats who will defect to mccain rather than vote for a black man^h^h^h^obama.
but do those numbers constitute a "large" segment or even a significant one? we'll find out in november, but i seriously doubt it.
oh, and josh, do you really want answers to your questions as to "why couldn't he win in PA" or "why was she the frontrunner in the first place?" or were they rhetorical? if the former, the answer can pretty easily be summed up in 2 simple words: party machine.
Posted by: jfdcbj | Apr 23, 2008 11:43:59 AM
josh runs away in response to everyone calling him on his lies
He insults us by refusing to acknowledge our comments and respond directly to our points and questions
That is bullshit
Posted by: Glen HD28 | Apr 23, 2008 11:53:12 AM
I support this much in the same way I like to see a football team down 35 with six minutes to play go for the touchdown, the ensuing onside kick, and as many more points as they can get. No, they can't win, but they can salvage some pride, build for the next game, etc.
The difference here is, after each quarter the trailing team does not ask the fans attending the game to pay their ticket price again and again and again.
Posted by: Charlie Burr | Apr 23, 2008 11:58:29 AM
The fundamentals of the race remain unchanged. As NBC’s Chuck Todd said last night, “The pledged delegate count is basically over…it now appears like it’s going to be impossible for Obama to lose his lead.”
The fact is that Barack Obama has won more key battlegrounds—states like Missouri, Colorado, Minnesota, Virginia, Wisconsin, and Iowa. Clinton points to her wins in states like California, New Jersey, and New York (her home state)—but everyone agrees that those states will go Democratic in November no matter what. And according to US Senator Sherrod Brown, who hasn't made an endorsement, either will carry Ohio due to the state's flailing economy.
The only real missed opportunity is the chance for our party in the coming weeks to focus our time, money and volunteer resources defining John McCain, not each other. That's the damage that Clinton is doing. It's not the legendary negativity of her campaign, but rather how she's diverting our attention from our real opponent: John McCain and his campaign for a third Bush term.
Posted by: Randle McMurphy | Apr 23, 2008 11:59:00 AM
Personally, I would prefer that Clinton drop out of the race after the April 29 registration deadline. The prospect of a relevant presidential primary in Oregon is a great thing for Democratic registration numbers, though it comes at a high cost nationally.
Posted by: Katy | Apr 23, 2008 12:03:40 PM
Charlie, that's just not fair. I don't want to miss my chance to vote for Senator Clinton in this primary and to pretend that she is "diverting our attention" simply by campaigning just does not make sense to me.
How many new democrats are there across the U.S. right now because this campaign has gone on so long? How will that be bad for us in the general?
Posted by: Paddy McGuire | Apr 23, 2008 12:04:11 PM
Thanks Miles for your insightful comments.
One of the things I am tired of from the Obama camp is the "he's won more states" argument. The only place that all states are created equal is the US Senate and they don't pick the President.
If you add up the electoral votes of states that Obama won the primary, he's got 209 (my methodology gives him 11 of Texas' 34 electoral votes since he won the caucus which was worth 1/3 of the Texas delegation) If you add up the Clinton states (again with 23 from Texas), she gets to 258. If you want to drop the Michigan results, it's 209 to 241. If you want to drop Michigan and Florida, it's 209 to 214.
Of the eleven states with 12 or more electoral votes, Hillary has won 8 2/3 and Obama has one 3 1/3.
The Obama math can't make Alaska and Wyoming equal California and New York.
Posted by: james mattiace | Apr 23, 2008 12:05:16 PM
Josh,
Did you really intend to write this:
"to ask how someone who hasn't been able to win any of the battleground states of Ohio, Pennsylvania, or Florida" ????
Florida? FLORIDA? Is that an actual Clinton talking point - she won Florida so she obviously has the ability to win the general? FLORIDA?
I don't remember there being a contested race in the Sunshine State. I do remember a pledge to not campaign there through.
Come on man, I respect all you have done for progressive politics in Oregon, but you should send a memo up the line to drop Florida from Hillary's resume .
Seriously, FLORIDA? Taken to the next level McCain should send out a press release touting his overwhelming victory in Pennsylvania last night.
James Mattiace
Note: The presence of any individual above does not imply an endorsement by BlueOregon. The selection of faces shown is done by Facebook. Visit BlueOregon on Facebook.
Post a comment
Posted by: Ben | Apr 23, 2008 9:15:33 AM
Who? I think it's the candidate who had the foresight to oppose the Iraq War from the get-go.
That's Barack Obama.