Primaries

Remove all ads!

Obama just took Wisconsin by 17 points. Everyone thought he'd win, but such a blowout is quite a surprise.

Texas and Ohio are now not just do-or-die states for HRC, but win by 20+ points states. I don't think that's terribly likely, but I also don't think that'll stop her from throwing everything she has left at them. The next two weeks will be interesting, indeed. Look for her claws to come out now, big time.

 

I agree on pretty much all counts. Obviously she has to throw everything she has left at Texas and Ohio, because without victories there she has no chance. It is still perplexing to me why Hillary didn't do more to try and win some of the primaries since Super Tuesday. She wouldn't have won in the deep south no matter what she did, so the fact that she didn't campaign in Louisiana probably made little difference. But why not pick out one state per week to focus on? Why not say, we'll try to win Wisconsin, Maine, and Washington? Instead she barely contested those elections and lost by double digit margins.

We have long since passed the point where it was possible for one canidate to win enough delegates to secure the nomination without the superdelegates. However, with every state that Hillary loses, it makes it that much harder for her to make a convincing case for the superdelegates to stay with her. (It probably is mathematically possible for one canidate to win enough delegates, but it would require them winning by unrealistic, 70+% margins in the remaining states.)

The other thing that is surpsrising - and this goes back to Obama's 17 point margin of victory in Wisconsin - is that he is performing better than what the pre-election polls indicate. When you look at people that have made their decision for who to vote for in the week leading up to the election (people who when polled likely said "undecided") are going with Obama by nearly a 2-1 margin (63% to be precise).

That fact has to especially concerning for the Clinton camp. Given that polls show Clinton's lead over Obama is shrinking in Texas, and that Obama tends to out-perform the polls, it is looking increasingly unlikely that a double-digit victory is possible in Texas. I still think that Hillary will probably win both Texas and Ohio, but she will do it with a percentage in the low 50s. If this were the week after Super Tuesday, that would be fine, but given that she's so far behind winning something along the lines of 52% of the delegates in Texas and Ohio isn't going to cut it.

The final problem for Hillary is that March 4th can't get here quickly enough. Not only has the month of February after Super Tuesday gone poorly, it seems like time has always been an ally of Obama. That the more people hear of him, the more they like him. Given that there are now two weeks until the next primary, and that both canidates will spend the majority of their time in Texas and Ohio, I think that benefits Obama.

The best case scenario for the Democratic party would be if Obama managed to win either Texas or Ohio, because then there would be great pressure on the Clinton camp to concede the nomination to Obama. (I'm not sure about this, but I don't think Bill or Hillary have ever lost an election.) One thing that all Democrats can agree on is the longer it takes for there to be a Democratic nominee, the more it benefits McCain.

 

The more I hear comments like that, the more I'm inclinded to believe that America is not ready for a woman prez, at least not yet. There is a unconscience sexism that runs throughout our society. And it is usually gender implied in such comments. The comment is that if she fights hard to win, then she's "Bitch with her claws out." If I man fights the same way, he's a tough fighter, a scaper." THAT'S perfectly acceptable and admired-- for a male.

Before you wig-out, DR, I'm not accusing you of being a sexist. There are times during this campaign that I thought to myself, "what a bitch that woman is." She comes across as manipulative and harsh, at least to me. But we don't expect that from a woman. But the same qualities in a male leader? Well, you decide for yourself. Politics is down and dirty business, especially these days. And Obama is not any better than the rest of them in this respect. But how a woman is expected to behave in what has been always a male role in America (prez), is reflected in her "womaness" or lack of it by many. As Bill commented, there is no way he can "make Hillary a male." Nor can the rest of America, for that matter.

 

I find it interesting that Obama won the Dem. primary by a larger margin than McCain won the Rep. side. I guess the right-wingers are really trying to send a clear message.

@Chandos: Maybe I've been sheltered from it (thanks, TiVo!), but I haven't seen much mud being slung in this primary - and when I do, it's Clinton hands that need the washing. That's how I took DR's comment; not that Hillary would fight hard to go for the win with everything that she has, but that she'd resort to fighting dirty, starting with negative ads and going down from there.

That said, you're still right about the unconscious sexism.

 

Money. There's a reason why she had to lend her campaign $5M from her own pockets.

I found this old Gallup poll. What shocked me was the ranking for atheists.

For myself, I'd love to see a woman president, with the caveat that she's the best candidate--which rules out Clinton. My wife used to be a supporter of Clinton until she starting watching how she's been conducting her campaign. There was a great feminist essay about what a horribel setback electing Clinton would be, but I can't find it. I'll post a link if I can find one.

 

For the record - there was no implied sexism in what I said, period. "The claws are coming out" is a common political colloquialism, used in reference to both men AND women, to describe someone going on the attack when their backs are against the wall. I heard it used during both the 2004 and 2006 elections, even among male candidates.

"Her equal-opportunity unisex mack truck of late-stage semi-desperate attacks and scorched-earth intra-party strongarming has left the station." There, is that better?

And I really disagree about the unconscious sexism part, for this reason:

Win or lose, Hillary's campaign has proven that a woman can run for President and get a fair shake. She's been the "inevitable" frontrunner for over a year up until now, in a field filled with impressive, qualified, male candidates no less. If that doesn't dispel the notion that we're not ready for a woman president, I don't know what will. She's losing now because she was too arrogant to plan past super Tuesday, favored loyalty over competence by keeping Mark Penn and whats-her-face at the helm, has no decent wedge issue with which she can differentiate herself from Obama significantly on policy, and is now undermining her own integrity by trying to change the rules she agreed to in an attempt to weasel enough votes not to win, but to deny her opponent of a clear victory. NONE of those factors have anything to do with her gender. She is the first credible woman candidate - no one can take that away from her - but she's far from the best. This race was hers to lose, and it looks like she's lost it.

Edit: Rally beat me to it.

 

CD - Now, how many people are going to admit in a national poll that they would not vote of a woman? That's the problem with polling on people's opnions. But as I commented, sexism is really unconscience on the part of most males, and even some women.

Rally - The O was quite negative after his suprise loss to Hill in New Hampshire. That is why he's not any better than the rest of them in this respect, at least in my opinion. Nevertheless, he has had the luxury of running pretty much in the lead. The leader's strategy is not to "screw-up," and to stay on message; the person who is behind has a different strategy, which is to cast some sort of doubt on the person leading. That's very hard to do without being negative.

What's been particuarlly heartbreaking for me, is that I wanted to support the Hill in this campaign, but have found myself unable to do so - I would really like to see women finally get their turn (but don't count on it anytime soon). Hill has always postioned herself too far to the right for me, because she assumed she would be running a national campaign from the start, and while a lot of Dems are moderates to left-leaning, nationally it is a quite different picture. That's why no one can really predict what will happen when McCain and Obama square off. I look for O to be more conservative than McCain on many of the issues, and that will be interesting for Independents like myself, who could care less about the party, but are looking at the individuals and their approach to the issues.

Edit:

Wow! Now that is a scoop you've got there, DR. IMO, and some others, she has had a very negative appeal in the press from the beginning. Many thought the the deck was stacked against her, because she was a Clinton, and that it would be the "Clinton years" all over again. Then, of course she was "Hillary," the great "Polarizer;" the one who would "unite" the Republican party around a "Cause," which was to defeat the evil woman, the spawn of Satan. I still remember the idiot talking heads on FOX News commenting that the surest way for "the Republicans to keep the White House was for the Dems to nominate Hillary."

But really, DR, there is never, or hardly ever, a "fair shake" in politics. But I believe that being a woman has played against Hillary from the start. And no one is going to admit to it; that's just the way it is. But that's just my opinion

 

Two things. She didn't really have enough funding, and that she has simply not been able to beat Obama in states where he has the time to cover most of the ground with a grass-roots effort.

Actually, Bill Clinton has lost a couple times. He lost a 1974 bid for the House of Representatives. In 1980 he lost his gubernatorial re-election bid. In addition to being the youngest governor ever elected in the US, this also made him the youngest ex-governor.

 

@ Chandos,

Good points all. But again, all are mutually exclusive to her being a woman, which kind of proves my point. Hillary Clinton is disliked for being Hillary Clinton. What she says, what she does, how she operates, and what she's willing to do to regain power. Case in point.

I will agree that her being a woman is a disadvantage in a general sense, though largely exaggerated. IMO, it's a hurdle she overcame when she was Miss Inevitable for most of last year. Her gender has been a negligible disadvantage, at best. But again - that's my opinion and I'm certainly open to being convinced otherwise, as always.

 

I know she didn't raise nearly the amount of money that Obama did. That's why I suggested that she compete in only a few of the primaries - she had to pick her battles, but apparenetly she was so poorly funded that she couldn't even do that.

@Chandos - As an independent will you be able to participate in the upcoming Texas primary?

 

Sure--the race-based version is known as the Bradley Effect, so those disapproval numbers are probably even higher. This raises the next natural question: which would folks rather reveal less to a pollster--that they are racist, sexist, ageist, and/or discriminate based on religion?

 

@Aldeth: while you make a claim many would agree to, we can't really know until we've seen a few more women candidates run. If the media don't like someone, it's easy to find something to be negative about. AFAIK Chris Matthews, who imo has as bad a case of Hillaryphobia as I've seen among the major commentators, has had a poor record with other notable women, too.

 

Aldeth - Nope. You have to be a card-carrying Democrat. I even spoke to a Democratic worker just yesterday, (who tried to get me to join the party and vote for Hillary). No luck.

CD - Good points!

 

I think they were correct though, albeit a bit course. There are too many negatives against Hillary for most voters -- she's a Clinton, she's a woman, she's a carpetbagger, she failed at health care reform, ... you get the idea. It appears the democratic party can also see these negatives. There is too much at risk to support a candidate that may not be able to beat the top republican. I, for one, do not believe Hillary can beat McCain, she has too much baggage (McCain has baggage too, but people appear to be more forgiving of this).

At the start of this election I stated I did not believe the country was ready to elect a woman, and that a black man had a better chance than any woman. I was slightly off with the comment because now I think Hillary had a chance against any of the republican candidates other than McCain. Obama actually has a fairly good chance of winning, but it's not a slam-dunk.

Right now, I don't see any strong women in national politics -- although I did like the govornor from Kansas in her rebuttal of the state of the union address -- perhaps in another 8 years.

 

Barbara Boxer. She's a 3 term Senator who is well liked in the democratic party, won her last election by a 20% margin, made the right vote on the Iraq war, and is the Majority Whip. While I doubt she has presidential aspirations, she would be formidable if she chose to run.

 

I would just like to support the notion of sexism. Whether we are aware of it or not it is most assuredly there. It is rather hard wired into us and extremely hard to see past. The man is the norm and the woman is the "other". Until we get past that which will take a lnog time any woman has a harder time than any man when it comes to prominent positions.

Oh and for the record, I personally find Hillary to be a scheming, populistic, power mad bitch to such an extent that even me who by American standards is as close to a communist you can come would have a very tough choice between McCain and Clinton.

 

I really wanted to draw attention to this comment because there is a belief in some quarters that Hill has had a "fair shake," and I don't believe she ever did, not for a second. I think she has always, since the beginning of this primary, had to walk the political guantlet. My reason for believing this is, of course, becuase she is a woman. This is the larger theme that I am building. Nevertheless, it will likely remain unspoken in most places because those of us who "would be" supporters of progressive candidates are not supposed to be that way. The Hill has had the "fair shake" because she is in the liberal/progressive camp. And everyone "knows" that we give people of gender, color, multi-culture, or whatever, the "fair shake," unlike our conservative brethern, from whom, of course, we would certainly "expect" the complete reverse.

And typically when you see a photo-op of a group of elected reps who are Dems, you see just that: women, multi-cultural, Latinos, again whatever...With Repubilcans you see the same old "suits," - white, male, middle-aged or older, and very Protestant - typically, I'm saying (and we certainly saw them lined up during the Republican debates, if you remember). Is that a mistake?

The sub-text is that perhaps we are not really all that more enlightened than our counterparts on the other side, regarding that particular notion, which has been one of our "sacred cows" for the longest time.

The editoral I'm quoting does not draw that same conclustions that I do regarding why Hill is not able to connect with a party that is almost synonymous with both she and her husband's name. Nevertheless, I think that this piece by Todd is interesting because we ARE more forgiving of Obama and Bill, and even more so in the "progressive/liberal camp," than we are of Hill. ????? Ask yourself why....

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23258192/

 

This may halp explain Texas's strange system of having a primary and a caucus on the same day:

From NPR

 

Communist is going entirely too far for someone who would, based on her record, be considered a moderate conservative overseas.

 

Drew - I think Joacqin was referring to himself, not Hill.

Wow! They are frying McCain at the moment. That was my point the other day about politics being "down and dirty business" and that no one gets a fair shake. I feel bad for him and his family because of what they are going through right now. A politician like McCain cannot even flirt with a woman without being scandalized to the point of oblivion. I guess the lesson is, never make the extreme right wing angry - they will get you anyway they can. They are merciless bastards....