I listened in on a CC with Hillary Clinton, and took a few notes. She's going to continue her campaign, undoubtedly, because she thinks she can win, or as she said: "I believe I will win; I believe my opponent could win."
The one thing that I was going to ask of Clinton, but didn't get my question in, was to ask that she push for reform of the primary process. I am fine with states choosing caucuses, but not if they are also having primaries. And if they do have caucuses, they should have less delegates, so the delegate to vote ratio is more closer.
Here was her message, and my extrapolation, in the call:
1) She's leading in the popular vote. Period. This isn't a procedural argument, but a moral one. Yes, they voted in FL and MI, that was their only chance at voted. It may not be what is used for distributing delegates, but no one can deny that there was a vote taken, those people count...
2) Count the delegates of MI & FL. This is a procedural argument. Whatever the committee decides, they decide. They better damn well not punt. I think it does signal a turn in the race, on June 1st, after they've been allocated in whatever fashion they determine. We will then have a clear marker on which both candidates agree, and the contest is decided.
3) Clinton makes the argument that she's won the states with the EV's that matter. The heart of this comes back to her claim that 'she will win, and Obama could win'. As she said: "Its the map not the math".
That was the gist of the argument, which I'm sure she's telling the SD's too.
I don't think either of them is a given against McCain, but that Clinton does have a better shot currently at winning the GE than does Obama. You can look at the EV maps here on MyDD, of the lastest poll in each state, to come to the same conclusion.
Paul Maslin has a good post that goes through Obama's chances.
To start, to grant Obama the states of Iowa, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin (only two of which Obama is leading in today) gets Obama to 255 EV's, according to Maslin.
For the last 15, Maslin includes Ohio & New Hampshire as toss-ups, which they don't seem to be at the moment. Ohio demographics make an uphill climb for Obama, and NH just marginally as McCain has some strong pull in the state historically; in my view, both are leaning McCain states.
So Obama is left with going out west, taking Colorado (9); Nevada (5); New Mexico (5); for a total of 274 EV's. Yes, Obama 'could' win, but lets not pretend that he's not a battleground candidate-- he's just changed the battleground states, given his weakness in Ohio/WV and in Florida.
I've said it many times, and it bears repeating. I'm not a Clinton fan by choice. I've come to support her through attrition, as the one left who I see could win. If or when she is out, I'll support Obama, and hope that the GOP's use his variety of gun stances and his proposal to raise the capital gains tax to 28 percent, doesn't work against Obama out west, and that somehow, Latino voters, whom didn't support Obama in the primaries, decide they will over McCain, whom is probably the most favorable Republican to Latinos at the moment, in the GE.
The odds of the Democratic nomination greatly favor Obama. Obama's odds in the GE are a toss-up.
11 comments :
Wouldn't it have been easier just to copy these same talking points off of Clinton's website? Winning the nomination has never been about winning the states with the most EVs in the primary. It's always about winning the most "legitimate" delegates. It's always been about "the math".
Hillary sounds like a football team who leads in total yards gained but is hopelessly behind on the scoreboard. Her argument holds as much water as the coach of that losing team saying, "We've gained the most yards. It's about the offensive output and not the score. We should go on to the next round of the playoff."
Hillary, Michigan and Florida all agreed to abide by the rules set out by the Democratic party. Michigan and Florida have already broken the rules and think that they shouldn't be punished, even though Hillary Clinton's own campaign director punished Michigan for the same thing four years ago.
Now, Hillary wants the Democratic party to ignore their own set of guidelines, rules and regulations on winning the nomination with the weak argument that it should be about the map instead of the math.
NEWSFLASH!! Some of the states that Hillary won in her EV argument will NOT vote Democratic in the fall, regardless of whether she is the nominee or not!
ANOTHER NEWS FLASH!! It doesn't matter WHO is the Democratic nominee, New York, California and Michigan will once again be blue states in November!!
BTW, you need to use better math if it's going to be about the math. You include Michigan and Florida in those numbers but exclude four states that Obama won that doesn't release the vote count; Iowa, Nevada, Maine and Washington. According to realclearpolitics.com, including Florida and Michigan (where Obama wasn't even on the ballot AND including estimates from the states that Clinton doesn't count, you have Obama with 17,014,911 or 48.5% and Clinton with 16,605,851 or 47.3%. Using ALL of the states that have voted, Obama has a spread of +409,060 or +1.2%. It's IMPOSSIBLE for Clinton to catch Obama in delegates, states won OR popular vote. Her only hope is to convince the super delegates to overturn the will of the people, which ain't gonna happen 'cause they're a lot smarter than most of the Hillary supporters and know the consequences!!
Its still not over till its over. The math does not tell who is the best candidate and Clinton is the best candidate out of the last three standing. Its funny how the Obama supporters still want to cut the primaries off before they are finished. As democratic supporters they just can't wait to let the democratic voters cast their votes. Remember, democracy is not about winning or losing. Its about the people's right to vote and cast their ballot. What are the Obama supporters scared of?
What are the Obama supporters scared of?
~~~~~~~~~~~~
NOTHING!! It's just surprisingly sad that a candidate can't accept defeat and move to help her party instead of staying in and helping her opponents by making the presumptive Democratic nominee spend time and effort battling two opponents. BTW, go to politico.com and look at the picture of the 75000 people in Oregon who turned out to see Senator Obama speak. Instead of criticizing Obama and falsely claiming that Clinton is the strongest of the three candidates, maybe you should take off the blinders and see how he is energizing people in places that can not only win the general election but can carry a tide of new Democrats into congress with his coalition of independents and former Republicans!!!
Here's a new Democratic website dedicated to the flip-flopping of John Mccain. It's similar in style to wikipedia.org and dickipedia.org, except it can't be manipulated by anyone without access, namely the DNC.
http://www.mccainpedia.org/
SO SAD!!! Is this how Clinton would govern?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Superdelegates Allegedy Turned Down $1 Million Offer From Clinton Donor
by John Aravosis (DC) · 5/19/2008
Huff Post reports on a story that I knew of last week, but wasn't going to report until and unless it was confirmed. They appear to have done just that:
One of Sen. Hillary Clinton's top financial supporters offered $1 million to the Young Democrats of America during a phone conversation in which he also pressed for the organization's two uncommitted superdelegates to endorse the New York Democrat, a high-ranking official with YDA told The Huffington Post.
Haim Saban, the billionaire entertainment magnate and longtime Clinton supporter, denied the allegation. But four independent sources said that just before the North Carolina and Indiana primaries, Saban called YDA President David Hardt and offered what was perceived as a lucrative proposal: $1 million would be made available for the group if Hardt and the organization's other superdelegate backed Clinton....
Saban is the nation's largest political campaign contributor over the last decade, FEC records show, giving nearly $13 million since 1999 to dozens of candidates, PACs, and Democratic campaign committees....
In March, high-ranking donors for Sen. Clinton, including Saban, sent a letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi chastising her for suggesting that superdelegates had a responsibility to support the candidate who finished the primary process leading in the pledge delegate count.
It's a little disturbing that the YDA's superdelegates/leaders aren't speaking out publicly about this matter. What happened and when? If David Hardt was on the receiving end of such a conversation, he needs to come clean.
^Source: http://www.americablog.com/
Hey anonymous, Clinton is helping her party, the democratic voters. You still don't get it. Once again if Obama wins the nomination and loses the general election it will be on him and no one else. Obama and his supporters are getting to be like the republicans, the party of blame. If you believe Obama is battling two opponets he really has a problem. There has been no confirmation of the Saban/YDA story concerning the $1million and you know it. Your game seems to be, say any thing that comes to mind about Senator Clinton's campaign but keep quiet about Obama. It ain't over till its over.
Argo,
I'll invite you to respond to the same question that I posed of John. Under what circumstances, other than Clinton managing to get the super delegates to overturn the will of the Democratic voters, do you imagine that Hillary Clinton can win the nomination.
BTW, the polls showing Hillary Clinton as being competitive with McCain (as is Obama) is NOT taking into consideration her winning the nomination in what would essentially be a backroom coup; one which could fracture the Democratic party permanently!!
Meanwhile.... Hillary is all agush about Karl Rove calling her the strongest candidate. Hmmm, why would a Republican strategist want to indicate which candidate would be the strongest candidate in November? Perhaps it's because he knows she isn't!!
It should be noted that Karl Rove is not the only one to say Clinton would be the strongest candidate. Many pundits on TV (other than republicans) have said the same thing. Did you ever think Rove's remark was made because he feels Obama will be the democratic nominee and he wants to plant that seed of doubt in the voters mind for the general election.
Argo said...
It should be noted that Karl Rove is not the only one to say Clinton would be the strongest candidate. Many pundits on TV (other than republicans) have said the same thing. Did you ever think Rove's remark was made because he feels Obama will be the democratic nominee and he wants to plant that seed of doubt in the voters mind for the general election.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Do you honestly think Karl Rove was aiming his comments at the voters in the November election? After two conventions and several months of campaigning by McCain and Obama, no one is going to remember what Karl Rove said back in May.
Post a Comment