Moving Forward: Obama Needs To Win Pennsylvania

by: Chris Bowers

Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 14:35


( - promoted by Chris Bowers)

I had a difficult time falling asleep last night, as I couldn't shake the feeling that something terrible had happened. On the one hand, there is still pretty much no way for Clinton to win without a protracted fight involving superdelegates, the credentials committee, and a Michigan delegation that can only be described as an abomination of democracy. On the other hand, there is also no way to justify her leaving the campaign at this point, since she did just win a popular vote victory of about 250,000 last night. In short, right now an extended campaign that eventually produces a clear outcome is the only way to avoid a large number of people viewing the Democratic nominee as illegitimate / weak. Inexorably, the campaign must now move on at least until Pennsylvania and, unless Obama wins in Pennsylvania, probably until at least June.

So, this could be bad. However, in the clear light of day, I realize that there is no reason for me to moan and wail. What is done is done, and we have to play the hand that has been dealt. Here is what needs to happen moving forward:

  1. The eventual nominee needs to be on a winning streak. Whichever Democrat is winning primaries and caucuses at any given moment will be the Democrat with momentum for the general election. Stumbling home to the nomination on the back of a string of defeats will make the nominee weak in the general election. This is what happened to Walter Mondale in 1984, who lost something like eight or nine of the final ten primaries and caucuses, and it killed him in the general election. Whoever wins the nomination needs to do so while winning primaries and caucuses, not losing them.

  2. Obama needs to improve. A close look at the delegate math shows that Obama is still the favorite for the nomination, since Clinton needs a string of contingencies to all fall into place just in order to draw even.  However, while Obama is the favorite, last night's contests should have made it clear that Obama has not positioned a clear majority of the Democratic coalition behind him yet. Further, despite the calls I have seen in some parts of the blogosphere, Clinton is under no obligation to drop out. If a candidate is still winning states, making delegate and popular vote gains, and still has a chance to win the nomination, it would actually be really bad for the party if that candidate dropped out. Just like a candidate who stumbles home to the nomination, it would create a perception of weakness and illegitimacy in the nominee among many voters for a candidate to drop out after a series of victories. So, in order to end the campaign and unite the party behind him, the pressure is on Obama to improve and deal the knockout blow that he was unable to deal last night, not on Clinton to drop out.

  3. This can't go on forever. To date, the lengthy nomination campaign has generally been a positive. It has generated massive press for Democrats, significantly enhanced our fifty-state and activist infrastructure, and forced both Clinton and Obama to improve as candidates on multiple occasions. However, there is also a point of diminishing returns, where the campaign can become too divisive, too nasty, and start drying up our general election advantages. While it is difficult to tell exactly when we turn the corner and the length of the campaign starts to become a negative, but allow me to humbly suggest that point is May 7th, the day after the North Carolina and Indiana primaries. Pennsylvania, Indiana, and North Carolina are actually all key electoral states at the presidential and / or congressional level, and as such I see mostly benefits from spending a lot of time campaigning in those three large states. Combined, they represent about 10% of the national population, and an even larger percentage of swing electoral votes and key congressional seats. Also, there are still six full months between May 6th and the general election, which is more than enough time to press our advantages nationwide.

    However, after the May 6th primaries, there are very few nomination events remaining. Further, if the campaign has not been decided by that point, there is probably no way to keep the decision from dragging out before eventually ending in a smoky backroom and angering a sizable number of Democratic voters. So, ending the campaign on or before May 7th seems fine, but if it keeps going after that point, we could be in some trouble.

Add these three propositions together, and it boils down to a single scenario: Obama needs to win Pennsylvania. If Obama wins Pennsylvania, he will go on to win Indiana and North Carolina, giving him the winning streak he needs for general election momentum. Further, given that Pennsylvania is probably even more demographically favorable to Clinton than Ohio (an older population and a closed primary), it will demonstrate great improvement on his party, and serve as a knockout blow (especially if he has drawn even on superdelegates by that point). Yet further, it will have allowed him to build a truly national infrastructure, and leave him plenty of time for him and other Democrats to press our general election advantages against McCain and Republicans. However, if Obama loses Pennsylvania, we could be in a world of hurt where the nominee stumbles home to the nomination and where our general election advantages do not have enough time to assert themselves.

That's how I see it. If Obama wins Pennsylvania, then everything is fine, and possibly even better than if Obama had wrapped things up last night. If Clinton wins Pennsylvania, then there might be no end in sight, no way for the nominee to unite the party, and our general election advantages disappear. However, it is up to Obama to pull this off, not on Clinton to back down and / or drop out. There are 48 days until the Pennsylvania primary.  
Chris Bowers :: Moving Forward: Obama Needs To Win Pennsylvania

Tags: , , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Moving Forward: Obama Needs To Win Pennsylvania | 99 comments
48 days (4.00 / 2)
I am absolutely with you on everything you said.
Except this. 48 days is a long-ass period with nothing happening.
There is a LOT of potential for something bad to happen. They can't fill 48 days with positive campaigning. More likely than not, a line is going to be crossed in that period.
THAT's what I cannot help worrying about.  
I agree--and I don't think Obama wins Penn (0.00 / 0)
It seems like the negative attacks are finally starting to sink in with Obama.  After that happens, its long before the feeding frenzy begins.  Personally, I really don't think it had to be this way: I don't think GOP attacks on Obama would have gotten the kind of cred and attention a fratricidal attack in the primary has gotten.  Now, though, I think we can expect both of our candidates to come out of the nomination battle extremely damaged.  I think I agree with Dean.  This needs to get solved now, and to be honest, as an Obama supporter, I don't really care who is on the top of a joint ticket.  

But even so, I think the floodgates are about to open on Obama whether Hillary does it or not.    

The Politics of Bruno S.

[ Parent ]
I am not sure (0.00 / 0)
Journalists are simpletons.
The backlash of the past two weeks may soon induce another backlash. As I said 48 days is a long time. There is plenty of time for them to turn back on Hillary.
Sorry to say but there are plenty of stories that never were run that the Obama campaign can push. i would refer you to what Obama said on the plane this morning but "what experience in foreign policy does she exactly claim to have ?". Expect them to push for more stories on that front to be published.  Guilting journalists works both ways.

Because funnily enough, however harsh the media has been on Clinton, they were harsh for very shallow things. They never really went into the larger issues like what is her experience supposed to be anyway.

[ Parent ]
its time (0.00 / 0)
for Obama to ask Hillary for specifics about 8 years in the White House. She's never given anything.  

Michael Bloomberg, prince of corporate welfare
[ Parent ]
Yeah, that's the elephant in the room. (0.00 / 0)
She's open to major attack on this, and I've thought of some devastating examples, but I'm not sure I want to see Obama having anything to do with that much undercutting. He will probably do better to remain gracious but tough as nails.
[ Parent ]
GOP attacks on Obama would have gotten the kind of cred (0.00 / 0)
this is so true. the bias of a cross party attack insulates the victim. while fratricidal attacks by contrast are very damaging because they seem credible. this is why its false logic to think a prolonged inside bare knuckle fight strengthens the candidates. when these inside fights are too close to the general there is not enough time for the voters to forget the negativity.

Michael Bloomberg, prince of corporate welfare
[ Parent ]
Are you kidding? (4.00 / 1)
"the bias of a cross party attack insulates the victim"

Tell that to John Kerry.

[ Parent ]
48 days is Plenty of Time (0.00 / 0)
Plenty of time to close what is already a shrinking gap.  
Rasmussens's 2/26 had Clinton at +4, Quinnipiac 02/21 - 02/25 gave her +6.0.  On Feb. 12, the gap was +16 per Quinnipiac.

There's no reason to believe that Obama won't continue to have a superior ground game, or to doubt the pattern to date: the more people see him, the more like him.  

Hillary, not so much.

For her part, Hillary hasn't even filed a full slate of delegates here, despite being given an extension by Fast Eddie in which to do so.

Compared to Texas and Ohio six weeks out, these numbers are downright rosy.  Even assuming a Hillary bump from yesterday, there's plenty of time to turn it around.  Indeed, the problem may become one of exceedingly high frontrunner expectations. We shall see.

[ Parent ]
Here is what I think should be the standard (0.00 / 0)
Pennsylvania is the key state. For the good of the party, whoever wins PA should be the nominee and whoever loses should drop out.  
[ Parent ]
asdf (0.00 / 0)
Where can I find information about the rules & credentials committee?  I have been on the DNC website and can locate the pledged delegate information but not who makes up the credentials committee and how a pledged delegate can be on the credentials committee.

Can Obama win the Pennsylvania primary?  What will it take?  

I was in Texas to do GOTV and driving folks to the polls - it was pretty darn exciting even though the results were not what I hoped.

The three standing committees (platform, rules and credentials): (0.00 / 0)

All 3 Committees have the same formula, which can be found in the 2008 Call.  Chapter VII contains the detailed information, but it boils down to this:  Each committee consists of 25 members appointed by Howard Dean; and 161 members casting 158 votes who are selected by the states and territories.  The number of committee members allocated to each state and territory is listed on the last page of the Call.  You'll notice that the numbers actually add up to 147 members casting 144 votes; this is due to the zero-out of Florida and Michigan.

Finally, each state's allocation is further divided between presidential candidates in proportion to the statewide popular vote (primary) or in proportion to the allocation of caucus states' at-large convention delegates.  At this point, there is no scenario where Obama could not control the state-appointed portion of the committee memberships; he will come close, but not quite be able to muster an outright majority of full committee control.


[ Parent ]
Cannot be Obama alone (4.00 / 1)
For the good of the party, it is up to:

a. The brain trust, including the blogosphere, to suggest and debate ways to combat the negative campaigning of HC.  Again, this is good practice for the general.  How does BO overcome "will the guy raised in a Madrassa keep you safe?" (note: obvious sarcasm there), in a way that DOESN'T simply look whiny?  Whiny attacks back, don't work.

So, what works here?

b. The supposed "weaknesses" of BO.  Do they really exist?  What are the counter-arguments?  Every Obama supporter, and progressive supporter, needs to know the arguments by heart, and share the arguments with every Pennsylvanian you know (at least in response.)

c. Outreach. Time to do GOTV, in an inviting, upbeat way, that attracts and listens to regular people.

Yes (4.00 / 2)
Chris and other's who have remained neutral until now need to step in help out. Aravosis has already done so. Other's need to follow. Especially if they are located in Pennsylvania. No more "interested spectator" who likes both candidates. One needs to win, and win soon for the good of the party.

As Colbert says: 'Pick a side. We're at war.'

[ Parent ]
Pennsylvania Independents (4.00 / 1)
I used to be registered as an independent back when I lived in a state where party affiliation didn't matter, even though I almost always voted for Democrats.  When I moved to a state where one had to be registered to a particular party, I formally became a Democrat.

I'm wondering if this is universally true.  What percentage of Pennsylvanians are registered independent and how does that compare to the national average?

I tried to look it up myself but failed.  I did see news reports that independents in Pennsylvania have until March 24th to register as Democrats.  If I were Obama, I'd start running ads now with just that information.

They've Already Done So (4.00 / 1)
In an email awhile back that linked to a page on the Obama site with information on how your republican friends could register to vote as Democrats.
[ Parent ]
As a non-Obama partisan (4.00 / 2)
I would add the following:  Have re-votes in Michigan and Florida.  This would have the following benefits:

1.  It would actually give a voice to voters in two big and important-for-the-GE states.  I.e., it's actually good if you really care about participatory democracy;

2.  If Obama regains his momentum, it would allow him even more opportunities to win over Clinton's base, thus giving him more cred within the party; and

3.  If Clinton stay on a roll, it would allow her to get close to even on the pledged delegate count, and ahead on the popular vote count, thus legitimizing her more as the nominee.

Seems like it is a good thing to do all around.

Obama could score points (0.00 / 0)
by strongly advocating the revotes. Part of the openness and fairness he wants to bring to politics and government. He wants all Democrats to get their chance to be heard and is willing to take his chances on what they decide. Is Hillary?
[ Parent ]
Um, (0.00 / 0)
Hillary has already opened the door to this possiblity.  Obama is the big hold-out on this one.  
[ Parent ]
I'm saying (4.00 / 1)
I think Obama needs to get out in front on this. He scores points from it, Clinton doesn't.
[ Parent ]
FL/MI (0.00 / 0)
They have to do something because this is so close and to disenfranchise two such important states in this kind of primary, well, I know if I lived there and when it came to the general, a huge resentful f**@ you would be forming in my thoughts.

People need to remember that Nader is a protest vote alternative and many agree with this positions and comments.
Now they probably won't vote for him in a tight race, but add a little rage in that mix, well....

NoSlaves.com  


The Economic Populist

[ Parent ]
Of course the anger (4.00 / 2)
would be more accurately directed at their own state parties and legislators, but that would be rational.
[ Parent ]
disagree (4.00 / 1)
I think it's the Democratic National Committee that should have let them have their votes in the first place period.   MI is screaming in economic pain, they have the #1 foreclosure market in the country, Detroit.  GM is busy busting the UAW in the most disgusting of ways, offshore outsourcing jobs.  They need attention and they needed it up front and the reason they need it is because they are hemorrhaging, bleeding, crashing and burning economically and those facts need to be out there, front and center from any candidate supposedly representing the American people, working America, the US national interests.     You want to get Republican votes, this is the way to do it, the entire nation is disgusted, positively disgusted with Congress, administrations representing corporate interests, special interests, even foreign national interests by passing lobbyist written, not even reviewed by many of our members of congress bills.  They are completely pissed off about it, all flavors of the political spectrum.

NoSlaves.com  


The Economic Populist
[ Parent ]
Sounds good now (0.00 / 0)
but many states were pushing up in the calendar at the time.  If it were just these two then fine, but it probably was more than that.  A line had to be drawn somewhere.

Regardless, the whole thing was a clusterf*&k and needs to be resolved, soon.

[ Parent ]
What annoys me (0.00 / 0)
is that the line always has to be drawn in front of Iowa and New Hampshire. That's what this was really about: for some reason, other states can't threaten the primacy of those two contests.
[ Parent ]
Getting attention by breaking the rules (0.00 / 0)
in public, and then whining when they get slapped, is not a very bright way to get attention. But they need a voice, so a new primary is the one way for the Dems to give it to them without making their coddling of rulebusters an issue with its own legs.

BTW, your argument hardly applies to FL.

[ Parent ]
Very true... (4.00 / 1)

.....it's important not  to lose sight of the fact that the citizens in these states should be heard from.

It was not they who broke the rules.

I'd be for a revote for both states.

Peace, Health and Prosperity for Everyone.

[ Parent ]
FL (0.00 / 0)
Have you looked at the foreclosure rates in Florida?  I think not.  My  understanding also with Florida is the Republicans forced their hand on it.  

But regardless, the fact these voters need to be counted period, supersedes any little argument among the DNC or a bunch of back room elites making decisions.  Figure out what's a fair way to do it, but let those voters be heard.  Period.


NoSlaves.com  


The Economic Populist

[ Parent ]
Rationally, I am mad at my FL Republican legislature (0.00 / 0)
but what good does that do?  Here in Florida the Republicans jammed through the primary date change by pinning it to the same bill that gave us a paper trail for our voting machines.  Were Dems supposed to vote against the paper trail that they had fought so hard to get?

It is the DNC that came up with this Draconian punishment, and they who must fix this problem. The RNC punished Florida Republicans by only counting half the delegates.  That would have been a more fair punishment if it had been enacted at the start but it is too late for that.  

[ Parent ]
This dark cloud (0.00 / 0)
(from my POV) does have a silver lining: Obama was needing a kick in the ass. His speeches have been getting tired and tiring. He needs to put some fact-muscle behind the hopeful generalities. He needs to do some triangulating of his own: Bush-McCain-Clinton as the failed old way vs a real fresh start. Not Clinton = McCain or Bush, but Clinton as the creature of the same old DC establishment. Do we want yet another rerun, or is it time for a real change of values, of perception, of mindset? And then he's going to have to back that up with solid ideas like putting independent inspector generals in major federal departments to investigate both his and previous administrations, for example.

I'm just about certain that he can pull that off. My fear is that lately he's been pulling back rather than pushing harder. I hope yesterday provides the shock he needs to engage Clinton and McCain at the same time. Maybe that was the real message from Ohio.

Hard (4.00 / 4)
This is really hard for him to do.  Why do I say this?  Because he is already doing it and no one gives him credit for it.  He even did a bunch of town hall meetings that tend to be very policy based; again, no credit.

Despite that, sadly, I still have to agree.

[ Parent ]
Florida and Michigan (4.00 / 2)
At this point I'm guessing there will be new elections in Florida and Michigan.  If this happens and when will add a whole new layer of complexity to this.
It actually is a pretty stark reality (0.00 / 0)
In that, if Obama doesn't win Pennsylvania, then this contest continues all the way through the convention.  Obama will still get seated (most likely), given he will still have over a 100 delegate lead.

But this REALLY significantly diminishes the likelihood of a Democrat winning in the general because:

a. More time for free McCain attacks.
b. More polarization on the Clinton/Obama factions.
c. Less time for a GOTV plan for the November election, that includes both wings of the democratic party, going forward as a unit.

The polarization could be deadly. (0.00 / 0)
Not sure I agree about the McCain time advantage, though. If he shoots his attack wad before the convention he'll have nothing left for the full-on general election. I think having no sure opponent forces him to either tip his hand or shrink back into the woodwork. Elections are not decided in August.
[ Parent ]
This is entirely arbitrary (4.00 / 7)
Somehow Obama MUST win Pennsylvania? Let's say he loses 55-45, then goes on to win North Carolina and Indiana by the same 55-45 margins. Pennsylvania has 12.4 million people. Indiana has 6.3 million, North Carolina has 9.0 million people. The hyperfocus on very big states blinds even the smartest politcal pundit to the magic of simple addition. If there was a state called Indianolina and Obama won won it people would say 'Holy Crap! Obama sure can win the big states'. The fact that Obama wins two states called Indiana and North Carolina should mean more than something called Pennsylvania.

Obama can't solidify the base because most of the base is women and they are voting for a historic candidate in Hillary Clinton. The base also includes African-Americans and I haven't heard anybody say "Hillary Clinton has not positioned a clear majority of the Democratic coalition behind him yet" and NEWSFLASH...she ain't gonna come close.

Momentum, winning streaks -- all of these concepts are very subjective if not entirely bogus. What was Obama's 11 win momentum worth? Nada. What was Clinton's NY/CA quinella worth? Nada. The Yankees 3-0 lead on the Red Sox in the ALCS? Momentum is the next set of delegates.

The press has started delegate counting and the country will too. The big issues now are the resolution of the MI/FL situation and the behavior of superdelegates. Pennsylvania just isn't that big of a deal and certainly less of a deal than Indianolina.

The Phoenix Suns played the Portland Trailblazers. The Suns lost the third quarter 30-19, lost the fourth quarter 21-18.  Yet somehow the Suns won the game 97-92! How? The first half counts! It counts for Obama too. When the Suns play Denver tonight they're not going to the the bad momentum of the second half dragging them down. They're going to be coming off of a win and a win is what counts.

John McCain

she ain't gonna come close (0.00 / 0)
yeah, i find the lop sided requirement proposed by this post odd. Why is the onus solely on Obama to win Penn? If he wins Indiana and NO and has a substantial lead in delegates, why does he have to win more? Where is the demand that Hillary have some reasonable justification for staying in? Why shouldn't Democrats be embittered if Hillary drags this to the convention without any justification for doing so? Hillary needs to win Penn, Indiana, and NO to win. If she can't pull that off then she has no reason to stay. Oddly I think this positions Indiana as the battle ground for momentum.

Michael Bloomberg, prince of corporate welfare
[ Parent ]
Missing the point (4.00 / 5)
You guys are missing the point.  Chris is saying the Democrats need to end this soon for the good of the party and the only conceivable way for that to happen is for Obama to win Pennsylvania.

He is not claiming Obama needs to win Pennsylvania to win the nomination.

[ Parent ]
Yeah, that's it (4.00 / 1)
Thanks for explaining!
[ Parent ]
and this is what they mean by rally around the candidate (0.00 / 0)
this is why people always say this. the point of the close second finisher to drop out early is not because the front runner is going to win decisively. quite the opposite, a drop out is precisely advocated when the front running is not going to win the primary by a big percentage. dragging it out, on a long shot that the second place candidate my cobble together a miracle is too risky to the party. if the second place candidate does not have a good chance of coming back and winning, they have a better chance of doing irreparable damage to the front runner. this is what's about to happen. HRC's highly improbably comeback attempt will make Obama look like a weak finisher. its no good.

Michael Bloomberg, prince of corporate welfare
[ Parent ]
Her (0.00 / 0)
There is a typo above where I use 'him' to refer to Hillary Clinton. I was quoting something Chris wrote in his original post and substituting Clinton for Obama to emphasize a point and forget to switch the pronoun. Sorry for the mistake.

John McCain
[ Parent ]
Game Over (4.00 / 1)
last night's contests should have made it clear that Obama has not positioned a clear majority of the Democratic coalition behind him yet.

How can he do this when we have people in states like OH who absolutely will not vote for a black person.  PA is the same. This doesn't look good for Obama.

It's not a problem for Obama, it's a problem for all of us (0.00 / 0)
If Obama loses because there aren't 270 electoral votes to be had in our nation without a deciding plurality of racists then the problem is with America, not Obama. I don't think that is why Obama is losing in these states (it's clear you can reject Obama as a candidate without race being a factor) BUT if race IS the deciding factor our country has A LOT bigger problems than who we elect as President.

If in 2008 Democrats make the strategic decision to embrace racist voters in the Democratic coalition in order to win then I'll not only not vote Democratic again, I'll actively work to undermine the Democratic Party. It took a century and a half to  work the racists and Dixiecrats out of the Democratic Party. I really don't think working them back into the fold because it suits the political ambitions of some in the party is worth it in the short or long run.

John McCain

[ Parent ]
Well said... (0.00 / 0)
I'd rather lose in November, because racists wouldn't vote for him, then placate to their ignorant views.

But I have to say that Ohio, even though it's a northern state, is culturally as backasswards as Kentucky or West Virginia.  That's why you see such a stark difference in the demographics between the young people and old people there.

[ Parent ]
Few states are as bad as Ohio... (0.00 / 0)
And most of those are deep red...  Ohio is a quirky anomaly...  PA won't be as bad, but, pennsyltucky could still be a problem...

Ohio still can be won in the general, despite the racism there...  just need to ratch up the poll numbers to account for the bradley effect.

REID: Voting against us was never part of our arrangement!
SPECTER: I am altering the deal! Pray I don't alter it any further!
REID: This deal keeps getting worse all the time!

[ Parent ]
Clinton needs to Win Pennsylvania (0.00 / 0)
Sorry Chris but there is an assumption going on here that all Democrats will not find Obama objectionable as in seriously objectionable.  I'd say that's clear from the Ohio results.  

So, just pre-deciding who you want to be the nominee means all Democrats want that is clearly not the case.  I believe it was 67% of all Democrats want the race to continue and they want a choice.  

I do not want Obama because after a lot of research I believe he will be much worse.  I don't know if this economic tsunami coming is going to hit this soon, but it will certainly hit or the aftermath will exist by the time the general is over, possibly the primary.

This is going to make Katrina look like a wave in a bathtub potentially and you must have someone willing to do what it takes to turn the country around economically.  Economics affects every other aspect of policy, including Iraq.  

Surely we all are aware of the great privatization, no bid contracts and so forth going on there, the economics of Iraq.  

NoSlaves.com  


The Economic Populist

I think his point.. (4.00 / 1)
Is that the math still looks really bad for Clinton, so a win for her there doesn't give her the nomination... it just makes Obama look much worse when he's (likely) the nominee.
[ Parent ]
the math (0.00 / 0)
well, Democratic leadership made this bed.  We'll see, there is FL/MI which I feel must be included in some way for one.  but I've also played around with the math of it all and I don't see how anyone can claim Obama just walked away with it because in essence, it comes out basically a tie and the caucuses, there are so many built in biases....well, let's just say it sure isn't as Democratic as possible.  So, because Democrats made this some sort of weird exercise in Calculus versus transparent, as fair and as Democratic as possible, I see....a mess.  A case for both sides.  

NoSlaves.com  


The Economic Populist
[ Parent ]
Let me help you out (0.00 / 0)
the caucuses, there are so many built in biases

That just doesn't fly as an argument to those who aren't Clinton partisans.  Put that up against the counter argument that Obama is much better at organizing this kind of thing and you lose the debate.

If you want to help Clinton, you need to change the argument.  Instead, argue that the general election more closely aligns with primaries.  As nice as the ability to win caucuses may be, that ability just doesn't help in the general election.

There, your welcome.

[ Parent ]
I'm think I'm just fine (0.00 / 0)
I happen to have a lot of skill with Math and differentials and that's what I come up with, give or take, a tie, no one hits the actual mark.  

You all just want your candidate to win and I don't wish to engage in that.  

NoSlaves.com  


The Economic Populist

[ Parent ]
Did you read what I wrote? (4.00 / 1)
I'm serious, the argument that Clinton does better in primaries actually does have some real weight if you look at it the way I described.

Why would you attack me for this suggestion?

It really is silly season, isn't it.

[ Parent ]
fyi (0.00 / 0)
I'm not attacking you, I'm disagreeing with you on this argument.  I see this as a wash it's not decisive and thus a blackhole to argue back and forth on.  

NoSlaves.com  


The Economic Populist
[ Parent ]
Still missing the point (0.00 / 0)
The point of Chris' original post is that the only way to prevent this from dragging on to the convention is for Obama to close the deal in PA. There just isn't a way for Clinton to do so before summer unless Obama self-destructs. At the minimum, he's going to have a 100 delegate lead in pledged delegates. Clinton may be able to match that by getting more superdelegates and getting MI and FL seated in some form. Even then, it's probably less than a 50% chance. But that won't occur until the summer. If that happens, whoever is the nominee is going to have a harder time beating McCain in November for the reasons Chris laid out.

[ Parent ]
the preposterousness of the HRC campaign (0.00 / 0)
i think what you say really points up how destructive and selfish the HRC campaign is at this point, she is significantly dragging down the probability of a Dem victory in Nov. If she can't win decisively by June she has no business dragging on to the convention. and she can't win decisively by June. Dean and the Dem leadership need to talk about this because they need to be very concerned about blowing this election.

Michael Bloomberg, prince of corporate welfare
[ Parent ]
yeah and (0.00 / 0)
I'm not as partisan.  I know Democrats can do almost as much damage to the US middle class as Republicans if they are bought and paid for or operating from some ill conceived philosophy.

From the fact that's it's pretty much a tie, obviously I'm not just out here singing this song on my lonely.  

NoSlaves.com  


The Economic Populist

[ Parent ]
There will be a revote (0.00 / 0)
Unfortunately, perhaps, this is the only way to give the nominee real legitimacy, and it will be costly.  And it favors Hillary.  Obama has to come out swinging pretty soon and hit her on her vulnerabilities, plus beef up his strong points.  

Chris' post is probably right.  And it could give us a genuinely scary next pres in John Mccain.

John McCain--He's not who you think he is.

[ Parent ]
Not sure about the impact (4.00 / 1)
Let's assume that FL and MI have new primaries. I believe the current allocations from the two states are as follows:

MI
Clinton - 73
Undeclared - 55

FL
Clinton - 105
Obama - 67
Edwards - 13

As it currently stands, that gives Clinton a 111 delegate advantage. Now lets assume that in new primaries, the undeclared delegates in MI and the Edwards delegates in FL would end up in the Obama column. (That would equate to Clinton winning both states, 57-43, by a larger margin than she won in OH.) Clinton would have only have a 43 delegate advantage. My guess is that the actual margin would be a little less than that. (OH like margins would give her a 31 delegate advantage.) That result would almost guarantee that Obama would have more pledged delegates at the end of the primaries than Clinton.

The only path I see for Clinton to end up with more pledged delegates than Obama is to get MI and FL seated as is.

[ Parent ]
Obama needs to get some targeted ads up in PA now... (4.00 / 2)
Obama should be targeting Indies and Republicans to switch their party affiliations to Democratic so that they can vote in the PA Primary.

The last day to re-register is March 24.

Not only would this just be generally good for Democrats (increasing the number of Democrats in the state), but it seems like this would be helpful, if not entirely essential, for him to win PA.

Don't worry (0.00 / 0)
The Obama campaign got started last weekend in registering new voters in PA. (And that includes already registered voters that didn't declare a party when they originally registered.) And of course, we are trying to register Obama Democrats!
[ Parent ]
gotta be careful with that... (0.00 / 0)
...we don't want any "Limbaugh" dems-for-a-day in there...

REID: Voting against us was never part of our arrangement!
SPECTER: I am altering the deal! Pray I don't alter it any further!
REID: This deal keeps getting worse all the time!
[ Parent ]
Well, they'd be Dems for a month! (4.00 / 1)
Since you have to change your registration by march 24th, you'd be a Democrat for a month. And we're not targeting Republicans, just those people that haven't declared a party or haven't previously registered.
[ Parent ]
Get out of the trenches and see the big picture (4.00 / 2)
I have not supported either Clinton or Obama, per my many posts criticizing both.

Nor do I intend to take sides now but to urge folks to see the big picture and not make this a mud wrestling contest among people who are so deeply partisan about their candidate that they lose sight of the forest through the trees.

In that vein, my first point is that I think it is just fine and dandy that the primary continues because the dialog between Clinton and Obama is pushing both to the left as they try to get into voters' mindsets.

Second, as soon as there is a declared presidential nominee, the Rove Swiftboat machine will rev up and start swiftboating whoever it is. And despite what anyone says, it will be very damaging because it will hit voters' in their gut and pull out despicable emotions.

Third, once there is a nominee, he or she will start moving to the right to try to appeal to McCain's voters.

So there is nothing to be gained by pressing for a conclusion right now and every thing to be gained by delaying it - provided Clinton and Obama refrain from self-destructing themselves and the party with negative personal attacks.

Hoping not to offend your readers, I am taking the liberty of posting here a comment I posted a few hours ago because it is relevant to the big picture, which I am hoping we will all keep uppermost in mind.

It was entitled: Clinton and Obama should immediately agree that both will be on the ticket in the general election

Coming in from left field on this, the best thing that Clinton and Obama could do now for the country and the party is to agree to run together in the general election -- without specifying who is at the top of the ticket.

The two of them have brought unprecedented numbers of voters to the polls to support them in the first ever primary election featuring a woman and an African American. A dual ticket with the two of them would be a winning ticket to defeat McCain, the Republican Party and the backers of the cabal in the White House since 2000 that has brought the nation to its knees.

They should pledge NOT to attack each other through the remaining primaries except in the context of point by point comparisons of their proposed policies.

But most importantly, they should agree that the one who has the highest number of votes cast (not delegates pledged) will be the presidential nominee. Florida and Michigan should hold primaries before the convention and their delegates should be seated.

If one of them refuses to agree to the above, then we know that he or she is in this to be the "top dog" rather than to serve the people or the party.

Just a few (actual) questions... (0.00 / 0)
"But most importantly, they should agree that the one who has the highest number of votes cast (not delegates pledged) will be the presidential nominee. Florida and Michigan should hold primaries before the convention and their delegates should be seated."

How should caucuses be counted in the popular vote total?  Also, why isn't there a legitimate argument to be made for the opposite in terms of who gets to be at the top of the ticket?  We may not like the system as it is now, but it is the system that's setup currently.  (Not saying that should necessarily be the case, just saying there's a legitimate argument that could go either way).

"In that vein, my first point is that I think it is just fine and dandy that the primary continues because the dialog between Clinton and Obama is pushing both to the left as they try to get into voters' mindsets."

Is this true?  It seems like Clinton is actually pushing from the right already... her recent attacks could just as easily have come from John McCain.

By the same token, Obama has been pushing from the right on Health Care.

[ Parent ]
Why Pennsylvania? (4.00 / 1)
It's not the last primary, nor is it singularly large (as if that matters).  I don't find your argument compelling, Chris.

You could equally say: Sen. Clinton, there are 187 pledged delegates at stake on May 6 in North Carolina and Indiana. (Note: more than PA's 158)  You are trailing in both states, but have nine weeks to prepare.

Aren't you buying into the Clinton camp's framing when you make PA a "must win" state for Obama? The whole beauty of Obama's 50 state strategy is that there are no "must win" states.  Clinton, on the other hand, has been running a campaign where the big states are do-or-die.  (And given that she didn't win VA, MD, CT, MO, WI, and ME, she's getting close to being able to appear in a George Romero film.)  

Think you're misunderstanding his point... (0.00 / 0)
The point isn't that Obama couldn't win the nomination if he doesn't win PA (he probably still would).

The point is that it makes him look much worse as a general election candidate.  He's arguing from the perspective that, basically, whoever wins the nomination needs to be the CLEAR winner, and have a winning streak at the end to take his/her momentum into the general election.  Since the math is greatly stacked against Clinton, that means that, from a General Election standpoint, Obama must win PA.

[ Parent ]
One has to win on the other's turf (0.00 / 0)
And PA is the largest remaining state that is her turf demographically.  Also, Chris doesn't want it to go on beyond May 12 primaries, and he wants Obama to have momentum.  Ergo his conclusion.  

John McCain--He's not who you think he is.
[ Parent ]
Win on her turf? (0.00 / 0)
Obama's done that: Maine, Connecticut, Vermont, Wisconsin, Virginia, Washington, and Missouri spring to mind.  Why is Pennsylvania somehow special (aside from cheesesteaks)?  

FlyOnTheWall has an excellent analysis at TPMCafe today that points out that attribution of state-by-state results to "momentum" or simple (monovariate) demographic models falls short.  I can't recommend that diary highly enough.  

Again, why is Pennsylvania so special?  Is it because Clinton is favored there?  She was favored in almost every state before the election.  Is it because it's a blue state?  Obama has won Connecticut, Washington, Wisconsin, Maryland, Vermont, and other blue states.  Is it because it's so big (158 pledged delegates)?  Well, as I pointed out, NC + Indiana have more.  

IMO, the Democratic electorate is more-or-less frozen at roughly equal levels of support for Obama & Clinton, with fairly dramatic differences across states.  Clinton probably will win PA no matter how Obama organizes there, and Obama will win OR (for example) no matter how much Clinton organizes there (as if).  There are a few close states (WV, IN, NC), but the math is pretty grim for Clinton in any case.  

[ Parent ]
No kidding, OBAMA has to do better (0.00 / 0)
"given that Pennsylvania is probably even more demographically favorable to Clinton than Ohio (an older population and a closed primary)."

Hillary is going to spend the next 48 days creating more doubts about Obama non-stop. People want change, but they don't want high risk change.

He needs to first admit that real doubts have been created and only he, not his surrogates, can confront them directly and dispel them. Every one of them.

That means sitting down and being grilled about Resko (s.p.) and NAFTA and whatever. He needs to do it in a way that shows respect for those who may have doubts, and in a way that asks the voter to personally trust him. Because he gets their concerns. And stop with the facile pat answer about Rumsfeld and Cheney have experience and look where that got us.

Bill Clinton did this masterfully on sixty minutes with Hillary sitting by his side. He lied, but he connected and he won the people over.

I sense that being that vunerable with the people is not something he is drawn to do naturally. But that's what is missing. People need to be able to look into his soul and see who lives there.

Biography is not enough. They still don't know the guy. He's biracial. He's got Muslim parentage. He grew up way off in Hawaii. They've never heard of him before. We're at war. The economy is tanking - there are too many unknowns here.

Then let the surrogates do all the questioning about what kind of experience Hillary really has and what she's capable of to seal the deal.
   

If Hillary Wins Pennsylvania ... (4.00 / 1)
... it proves yet again that she's the candidate who wins in big blue states.

So why is that a problem? Don't the Democrats want a winner this year?

Or are too many Democrats willing to fritter away the election on an inspiring speaker who wins elections in Alabama and other hopelessly red states?

My theory is (4.00 / 1)
that people are backing the candidate they think will make the best president.

Radical, I know, to fritter away one's vote on such a baseless notion. But there you go.

[ Parent ]
Let's parse that: (4.00 / 1)
So Clinton winning among Dems in PA means she'll win PA in the general, but Obama winning among Dems and Indies means he'll lose in the general? Nice try.
[ Parent ]
Fellow Insomniac (0.00 / 0)
I have had a bad cold and was dreadfully tired.  Tried going to bed at 11:30, gave up and went back to the computer at 12:30.  Back to bed at 1:45, still couldn't sleep for another hour or so.  Something bad DID happen last night - John McCain became our 44th President.

I am hoping to feel less fatalistic in a few days.

Obama has to win PA (0.00 / 0)
Well, it's more than that really. I don't think he will win there, and I think Hillary will win there, Indiana, N Carolina, Kentucky, West Va and possibly Puerto Rico. If she strings together that kind of run, I don't see how she can be denied the nomination. I worry about either of them being able to win in November, which is why I liked Edwards,but facts are stubborn things folks - like it or not, it looks to be Clinton.
Don't really get this... (0.00 / 0)
That kind of run would damage Obama as a general election candidate, but it probably still wouldn't make up her pledged delegate deficit.

It'd be like a football game where one team is winning 28-3 until the last 5 minutes, when the other team manages to score 3 touchdowns.  Sure, they have the momentum, but they still lose the game.

[ Parent ]
Walk me through the math. (0.00 / 0)
You see her winning those races with margins sufficient to give her a pledged delegate majority? How big are those margins, exactly?
[ Parent ]
And she'd still be behind (0.00 / 0)
Clinton's problem is that she dug herself a hole that is going to be very hard to get out of. NC isn't favorable to her but even if she did win all of the above, it's not enough to get her more pledged delegates than Obama. And if Obama can continue to close the superdelegate gap even slightly between now and then, she's going to have to rely upon getting MI and FL seated with their current setup. (I don't see that as likely. Obama would probably come out ahead if they revoted, especially in MI where he'd probably get at least 55 delegates that were undeclared in the first vote.)

Obama doesn't have to win PA to get the nomination, he has to win PA to get the end game moved up from summer to late April.

[ Parent ]
Walk me through how she wins NC (0.00 / 0)
actually, i'll settle for an explanation of how she doesn't lose by 15% there. NC is Obama's insurance policy. He's already way up on polls. http://www.pollster.com/08-NC-...

Michael Bloomberg, prince of corporate welfare
[ Parent ]
Incredibly unlikely that Clinton wins NC (0.00 / 0)
And probably not Indiana.
[ Parent ]
Couldn't the superdelegates (0.00 / 0)
end this tomorrow? How many of them would it take?
Could does not equal would (or even should) (0.00 / 0)


John McCain--He's not who you think he is.
[ Parent ]
No, but Chris seems to be (0.00 / 0)
saying that Obama winning PA is the only real way for this to end--without a serious wounding--pre-convention, yes? Seems to me that superdelegates could do the same. Wouldn't be as clean a victory, but would end things quickly.

I think this is highly unlikely. But it also seems like this is what superdelegates are for. If a race threatens to hurt the party (and I don't think this one does, but others apparently do), then they should step in.

Of course, the question then is: on whose side? And that's the hard bit, I guess, for them.  

[ Parent ]
I must have missed the endorsement Chris.... (0.00 / 0)
....where is it written by you that Obama must be the nominee?

When the race is so evenly split that should tell you and supporters on both sides something. The voters don't see a big difference.

Us savants of the 'sphere are supposed to be sharper than that....

But...

Stoller sez: No Obama.

Kos sez: I luvs me some Obama!

Lamberts sez: Over my dead body!

Jerome....Clinton.

And on I could go but....

I still think 'we' in the 'sphere stay out of it or make a case for putting both on the ticket.

Both on the ticket would seem to be something the people want and could get enthusiastic about.

But of course ego, sexism, racism and hubris get in the way...on the part of the candidates I mean. If they can't come together to whip ass on the Republicans that just makes them that much less acceptable to progressives.

So.....

My 2 cents for what they are worth. We in the 'sphere should be making arguments, good ones as we know how to do, for a unity ticket. It's the best way out of the mess the Dead Loser Caucus and Dead Corpse Committee for Change have put the party and the progressive movement in.

Clinton/Obama Unity 08!....ladies first ya know....or ya can go by experience....or PP score.

Peace, Health and Prosperity for Everyone.

Just to be practical (0.00 / 0)
The most likely outcome is that Obama loses Penn.  Look at the demographics, and the size of the state.

While I hope that Obama can turn this around, and I agree we do all to make that happen, I would say now, this is unlikely.

This means that, the same patterns continue - Obama wins his states big, while narrowly losing Penn.

Which means, we DO go to the convention, with Obama ahead by, I would suspect, around 180-200 pledged delegates.

a long primary won't be a problem at all (4.00 / 1)
Relax. None of this matters to most voters. As long as the eventual nominee doesn't win by overturning the pledged delegate leader using superdelegates and/or state delegations that have been banned, the Democratic nominee will be fine in the fall. A long primary campaign doesn't erase the basic situation which is an economic recession, a foreign policy fiasco in Iraq, and a very old, uncharismatic, flip-flopping Washington insider GOP nominee who wants 100 more years of Middle East wars. The eventual Democratic nominee will have more than enough of time to raise all the money s/he needs, destroy McCain in 2 or 3 debates, and win the election.
So... (0.00 / 0)
as long as Obama gets the nomination, we'll be fine?

I don't think that's true.  If Obama loses more or less every state from here on out, but with close enough margins to more or less maintain his pledged delegate lead, wouldn't he be a really weak nominee?  The problem is, Hillary would also be a really weak nominee in those circumstances, since she'd be winning despite a considerable deficit in pledged delegates.  It's a total fucking mess, going forward, and, as Chris says, the only way to obviate this is for Obama to win Pennsylvania.

Which doesn't look likely.  Sigh.

[ Parent ]
nobody will remember who lost what in May by November (0.00 / 0)
The short answer is: that isn't going to happen. There's no reason to think Clinton is going to suddenly become competitive in smaller caucus states such as Wyoming. Obama will continue to win those states by huge margins. And anyway how many voters in November are going to be saying to themselves, "I really like what Obama/Clinton is saying but I'm going to vote for McCain because Obama/Clinton lost a bunch of primaries in May." Voters don't think like that.
[ Parent ]
Wyoming is the only caucus left (0.00 / 0)
Obama may win primaries in South Dakota and Montana, but that seems less guaranteed.

I'd say Obama will definitely win Wyoming and Mississippi, and will almost certainly win North Carolina.  Everywhere else is potentially up for grabs, although I'd certainly give him the edge in Oregon, South Dakota, and Montana.  And people will remember who won in May in June and July, when superdelegates will be awaiting the convention.

[ Parent ]
And it's not about who won in May (0.00 / 0)
for the election in November.  It's about the difficulty of reunifying the party if it actually goes to the convention.
[ Parent ]
This seems fair (0.00 / 0)
I'm not convinced that Obama needs to win Pennsylvania to win the nomination, but to have any kind of a clean nomination, he does.

If he loses PA, he may still end up winning the nomination, but, as you say, it'll be a limp to the convention

I just did a projection for delegate totals.  Even with pretty bad results going forward for Obama, he ought to end up with at least 1690 pledged delegates at the end of the nomination process.  Assuming that, in addition to the 196 superdelegates he has now, he (eventually) gets that other 50 that Tom Brokaw hinted at.  That's another 246 delegates.

That puts Obama at --- 1936 pledged delegates.  There would be, at that point, 235 remaining superdelegates.  Obama would need 89 of them to win the nomination; Clinton would need 147.

That's a really awful place for us to end up.

And, really, it seems fairly likely.  It's hard to see how Obama can win Pennsylvania without some kind of serious boost to help him out.

This is looking to be a mess.

Unity ticket (4.00 / 1)
Obviously, the Democratic Party is divided, and a unity ticket may be one way of bringing them together behind the nominee.  But in either case, a unity ticket would just be a way to throw away the election.

A Clinton/Obama ticket.  Maybe Obama may manage to get some of the many new voters he has turned out so far, but not many.  And everyone but the Clinton partisans will look at the ticket and wish it were reversed.  Obama's energy, charisma, and rhetoric will just remind people of what they aren't getting.  The end result will be that Clinton will lose, and Obama will be tarnished.

An Obama/Clinton ticket.  On the surface, this looks good, because Obama can do his unity/hope/change thing which is a winning message against John W McCain, while Clinton can be a experienced policy workhorse/attack dog.  But, this would end up destroying his message, and probably his candidacy.  For better or worse, Clinton actually represents much of the inside-Washington schtick that Obama is trying to fight.  Allowing her onto the ticket would simply make him seem hypocritical.

Now Is the Time (0.00 / 0)
for the national progressive blogosphere to band together and help make this happen. We have enough disinterested journalists covering this race. We need activists to help shape a media narrative that will help Obama win Pennsylvania and/or wrap this thing up before things get too ugly (or drone on into June). Pick a side and make an argument. The future of your Party depends on it.

Politics is a strong and slow boring of hard boards.
The argument for Obama to go Nuclear (4.00 / 1)
So sitting here I've been drinking, I mean thinking, and come up with this. A few premises to my argument that I rely on.

1) If Obama does not win Penn, or come close in Penn and blow Hillary out of the water in Indiana and NC, Hillary can drag this out to the convention.

2) Obama can not lose before the convention

3) If it goes to the convention Obama will not have gotten there with any significant momentum.

4) Going to the convention significantly weakens Obama against McCain.

5) If Obama continues to campaign as he is now he can not win Penn and is unlikely to landslide Indiana. He may landslide NC.

5 is the biggest assumption - that Obama's campaign style now is effective for maintaining his lead but not a KO. Given those, Obama faces little risk in going Nuclear against Hillary in attempt to completely discredit her. He jeopardizes his chances against McCain MORE if he does not go nuclear on Hillary. Villainizing Hillary would pose less risk to him.

Other risk considerations: He may losing some of the female vote. But at most they would stay home in the General. As a trade off he may even pick up some independents and republicans who also dislike her.

harebrained theory?

Michael Bloomberg, prince of corporate welfare

Better scenario (4.00 / 2)
Obama strings together a bunch of good news over the next couple of days. Mind blowing, record smashing February fundraising totals. He wins Wyoming and Mississippi big in the next week. Superdelegate endorsements galore. Hillary's momentum and small delegate gains are wiped out.

Then someone, somehow convinces her to quit. Maybe it means offering her the VP slot, or a prominent spot in the administration, or even a Supreme Court nomination. Whatever it takes, she's got to cede this race.

The problem is that even in this best case scenario where Obama wins PA, it'll still come in the aftermath of 48 days of negative attacks not coming from Republicans, but from a fellow prominent Democrat. There'll be more "red phone" ads that only serve to make McCain look good against Obama. More sound bites from Hillary's own mouth that'll fuel GOP ads in the fall. And six weeks lost the Obama could be using to raise funds while defining himself against McCain.

It's not the outcome of PA that we should worry about, it's this interlude leading up to it that's the problem.

I'm not sure where else to post this, so here goes (0.00 / 0)
I heard from an insider source today that last night there were a very large number of cross-over votes for Hillary--that is, a whole lot of votes for just the Presidential candidate (HIllary) and no vote for down-ballot races.  My source (who is on the Red team) suggested that the reason for this was that Republican voters have been crossing over, following Limbaugh et. al. who have been encouraging people to vote for Hillary over Barack since she's an easier opponent for McCain.  Have any of you heard anything to corroborate this?

Kicking it in the NY-25.
Isn't It Enough that Limbaugh Asked? (0.00 / 0)
The very fact that Limbaugh and Coulter and who knows who else have been telling the mouth-breathers to vote for Hillary would suggest that many did, especially in an open Texas primary with no drama on the red side.  Don't recall if Ohio's was open to all or not, but if so, it probably happened there, too.  In addition, I personally heard a caller to Hannity say she was going to do just that in Texas so McCain could face Hillary instead of Obama, who had her worried. (And in case anyone is wondering why any sane individual would listen to Hannity, it was fun to listen to Rush, Hannity, et. al. for those couple of weeks when they couldn't wrap their heads around the notion of a McCain candidacy.  Sadly, they've reconciled themselves with that fact and are back to being their usual, insufferable selves.)Unfortunately, I heard Prof. Jason Johnson opine this morning that there's no on-point polling data on either state, at least that he was aware of.
[ Parent ]
Not that it really matters, (0.00 / 0)
since it's all perfectly legal.
[ Parent ]
Evidence (0.00 / 0)
Not sure the evidence is overwhelming, but it certainly exists.
[ Parent ]
Where you're wrong (4.00 / 1)
I agree with the sentiment of what you're saying, but it is not helpful for supporters of the Democratic party to keep conflating the importance of a half a dozen states.

There is more than one way to get to 2025 delegates, and there is more than one way to get 270 electoral votes.

This is particularly true in a proportional system like the primaries and caucuses.

Well (0.00 / 0)
Jimmy Carter lost every primary he contested with Jerry Brown and still he beat Gerald Ford, the incumbent.
No no no... Obama has to WIN MISSISSIPPI! (0.00 / 0)
I disagree with your analysis, Chris, mostly for the following reason.  Obama might not win Pennsylvania!  

Here's what I think.  I think Obama has to win Mississippi.  IT's do or die!  In fact, we might even say, if Obama doesn't win Mississippi, it's all over for him, but if he wins it, he will ultimately win the nomination!

(Isn't it uncanny how similar this is to what Bill Clinton said about Texas and Ohio?  Of course, the difference here is that it's true.  For Obama to lose Mississippi, he would have to be dead or in jail, which would probably keep him from winning the nomination.  And since he's going to win the nomination anyway, if he wins, it's also true.

But let's make this our make or break moment!  Obama's strategists should have a big hand wringing call to journalists about this.  They should blame each other and threaten each other with slander lawsuits.  Let Obama get as nasty as he wants with Hillary.  And then if he wins (if!), well, it's new momentum!  Maybe enough to win Pennsylvania, which, eh, it's important too, but not as important as Mississippi was!  Because he broke Hillary's momentum in Mississippi.

I'm being only half-facetious here.  A big fake brouhaha about winning an easy state would be as effective as a big brouhaha over a hard state, as unfair as that may seem.  Texas and Ohio should have been easy for Hillary.  She was ahead by a gazillion points for most of the campaign.

And I don't think you can force Hillary out of the race anyway.  They will stay in, if just to be spoilers.

You guys crack me up (0.00 / 0)
if the eventual nominee doesn't win by overturning the pledged delegate leader using superdelegates  
Says who? The Obama rules? They now trump DNC rules?

If Clinton wins Pennsylvania, then there might be no end in sight, no way for the nominee to unite the party, and our general election advantages disappear.

Again, says who? By what procedure is he the nominee short of the required number of pledged delegates? Superdelegates at that point will know who the nominee should be (altho I'm sure they'll wait for IN & NC  results to come in.)

Despite what Kos, Chuck Todd, Chris Matthews, Jonathan Alter and David Plouffe say, NEITHER candidate can get to the winning number without supers.  

I can just hear the outcry if BO were behind by 100 votes and the clamor for his resignation were as loud as it here.

Moving Forward: Obama Needs To Win Pennsylvania | 99 comments
Donate to Open Left







QUICK HITS

Friends of the Earth thanks the OpenLeft community for the ideas you generate and your contributions to the progressive movement.
As an anti-spam measure, there is a 24-hour waiting period after registering before new users can comment.
blog advertising is good for you
blog advertising is good for you
LIBERAL INSTITUTIONS
STATE BLOGS
SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

Home | RSS/XML Feed | Register | Contact

  © OpenLeft 2007-2009, Powered by SoapBlox