There seems to be a consensus among certain segments of our society known as journalists and Obama supporters that its been a fait accompli that Obama will win the democratic nomination.
We've had Jonathan Alter's brilliant political insight in Newsweek suggesting Clinton get out of the race back in early March, before she won Ohio, Texas,and Rhode Island, Jim Vandehei's column in Politico.com called "Hillary Has No Chance", and Obama political mouthpeices like Richardson and Leahy calling for her to drop out (so that Obama could play out the good cop/bad cop routine and come on as Mr. Noble saying Clinton should stay in the race).
But the more one looks at the actual facts and not the dishonest spin of the media or Obama supporters, the facts say it's Obama who is going home and in fact has no chance for the nomination.
There are the simple, irrefutable facts supporting this. Facts that have existed for quite some time and ignored by media types like Alter, Maureen Down, Keith Olbermann and other Obama cheerleaders in the media who want to skew perceptions and then act as if they are reality in the service of, not journalism but in promoting their own agenda.
So here are a few facts that should tell them, Obama's supporters and Obama himself that they are not in Kansas anymore.
Obama's lead in the popular vote is, as of now, a day before the PA primary, 0.06%.That is 92,000 votes. That is going to be gone after Tuesday and Clinton will have taken the popular vote lead and in all liklihood will not give it up since she is favored to win 6 of 8 of the remaining primaries.So it will be Clinton who is going to end the primary season with the popular vote which alone gives her 100% of the "will of the people" argument. Even if there were nothing else it would be enough to secure the remainder of the uncommitted super delegates since the argument has been made that super delegates should not overturn the will of the people.
This figure of a 92,000 includes the popular vote of both Florida and Michigan. And don't tell me that in counting the popular vote Florida and Michigan doesn't count. Even if there are some dumb enough to believe that after what happened in 2000 the Democrats would send out a candidate who was there only because votes weren't counted in Florida, there is not a single reason not to count them in the popular vote. Unless of course youre hoping to steal an election.( As an aside, the principled Obama actually floated the proposition that he and Clinton split the Florida and Michigan delegates 50-50 even though he was landslided in both primaries. In other words Mr. Principled Politician was willing to try and steal delegates that didn't belong to him, that he didn't earn, didnt' win, and that the voices of the people who placed those votes said were not for him but for Clinton).
As for their delegates, Dean has vowed they will be seated, and they most certainly will be. But even if they werent, super delegates can still count. And if you count Florida and Michigan's delegates, Obama's true delegate lead one day before the Pennsylvania primary is 70, not the 140 being touted by the media .Clinton netted 70( or more) delegates in both of those fair and square primaries and an inside dispute over what amounted to a parking violation isn't going to negate that. Not unless the Democrats want to kiss Florida and Michigan goodbye and give the election to McCain which isn't going to happen.
A big win in PA on Tuesday will cut that 70 delegate lead to less than 50 and and a Clinton win of 60% of the vote or more, a very real possibility, could cut the lead in half. to 35. It could even be more depending on the size of the Clinton win, which based on the past performances of the current polls ( which have under counted Clintons margin of victory by 10 or more) a win of 20 pts. or more is possible.
A delegate lead of 50 or less is certainly a surmountable lead and the polls in the upcoming primaries show Clinton leading in 6 of the 8 remaining. So she has a very good shot at endiing up with the delegate lead as well as being a virtual lock to win the popular vote.
That would be more than enough to show that Obama has no chance but there is more. Clinton will have won every important state in the northeast, Florida, the entire southwest from Oklahoma to Nevada, the industrial Midwest and California. She has also won Tennessee and is favored heavily in Indiana, W.Va and Ky. Since when does the loser of all those states get the nomination? And all the other metrics which show a candidates strength are overwhelmingly in Clinton's favor.
Here are a few as reported by Michael Barone in US News and World Report.
In electoral votes Clinton beats Obama 263-202 before PA. In population of states won, one of the most important and strongest indicators of strength in a general election as well as the will of the people, Clinton leads 163,000,000 to 101,000,000. and that is going to increase enormously after the PA primary. These arent landslide margins, these are earthquake margins. The population of the states Clinton has won is 63% greater than Obama's now and is going to increase to more than 70% after Tuesday's primary.
And in states that had actual elections and not caucuses Clinton beats Obama 2-1.
Finally, if Democrats apportioned delegates in primaries that were winner take all, like the Republicans which is the only sane way of doing it since it emulates the general election, Clinton right now would have a 300 delegate lead.
Most of these statistics are more than a month old. Yet it didn't stop the mainstream news media from painting a picture of Obama's invincibility and inevitability when it' been the opposite that has been true. A stunning picture of media dishonesty which I think will haunt them with the public for a long, long time.
Given all the metrics showing Obama is clearly the weaker candidate and that a Clinton candidacy is really the will of the people, given the exposure of Obama's unprincipled relationships with people like Wright, Rezko and Ayers and his deceptions and the misstatemens he has made when first confronted by them, and the justifiable mistrust that has been created in both his judgement, abilities, honesty and patriotism, and add to that the head to head match ups with McCain in states Democrats have to win, Ohio, Pa, and Florida, where the polls show Clinton completely wipes out Obama and beats McCain where Obama can't, there will not be a super delegate with 2c for a brain who wants to win in November who is not going to vote for Clinton by the time the primary season ends. Which is why most of them are waiting to do just that.
Cast Your Fate To The Wind
-
Time to wind down, everyone. Tomorrow is a big day. I have champagne in my
fridge. I’m going to drink it one way or the other. Dancing in the street
would ...
7 hours ago
Posts
28 comments:
I'm a Clinton supporter, but I think your assessment should be modified. Michigan, in all fairness, should not be counted as is. Obama's name was not on the ballot, and so it is only fair that something else be done about Michigan.
However, I wholeheartedly agree that Florida should count as is, since both had their name on the ballot AND Obama was running ads while Clinton was not. The turnout in FL was also huge, whereas it was not in MI.
For these reasons, I feel that FL will be counted in the total vote / delegate count by supers, but MI will not. Still, I think Puerto Rico will be the wild card here, depending on turnout. We already know Clinton will win it by a healthy margin, but remains to be seen how many votes she will net. Either way, I think the difference in the popular vote total will be negligible at the end and that Clinton still has a chance of winning by that metric.
I have no interest in any of these being elected, but to me, Clinton clearly has the best shot at beating McCain, as she is currently ahead of him in must-win Ohio, whereas Obama trails.
This was the dumbest thing I have ever read on the "internets".
Obama '08
And the 1:56 post is obviously an Obama supporter - incapable of intellectual discourse, and forced to resort to dismissing any criticism.
Obama has repeatedly shown how weak he is at handling criticism. This should have been anticpated by his supporters, as he has NEVER faced a serious challenger in his entire political career. Plus, McCain is going to be twice as hard on Obama as Clinton. Just wait for Obama to drown in his own whirlpool of whiny conceit.
MDR, Quit using controlled substances.
MDR, Quit using controlled substances.
Let me balance this obviously one-sided analysis with some real facts.
Fact: The Michigan vote was declared unconstitutional and didn't include Obama's name on the ballot. To include it makes no sense.
Fact: Your "popular vote" totals grossly underestimate the true number of voters in caucus states, which cast votes representative of groups of caucus-goers, not individuals. Several caucus states do not even report a so-called "popular vote".
Fact: Electoral votes and the populations of states that voted are not indicative IN ANY WAY of general election results. Somehow Clinton winning a state automatically means that Obama wouldn't in the general? She should count the entire population of that state as her supportors? It is preposterous to suggest this, and this is your most ridiculous argument.
Fact: Caucus states DO COUNT. They are part of the deomcratic primary process, whether you like it or not. Measuring in any way that discounts them doesn't make sense, and disenfranchises millions more voters than the MI and FL fiasco.
Fact: Rules are rules. Before this started, both candidates agreed that the primaries in FL and MI were not to be counted. To change the rules now in a way that greatly advantages one candidate over the other is unfair. If a compromise is reached, it must be just that--a compromise, agreed to by both campaigns.
Fact: Rules are rules. Delegates are NOT awarded winner-take-all. They are awarded proportionally. Hypothetical elections with different rules are not valid points.
Fact: Rules are rules. The only real measure of a candidate's support is delegates, both pleged and super. Period.
That is how the process was designed, that is how the game is played. Just because one player knows the rules and plays better doesn't mean the other player can change the rules at her whim.
Your analysis is weak.
I predict a floor fight at the DNC convention in Denver that will make WWII pale in comparison. Another prediction: If Obama doesn't win the nomination, cities with a significant black population will go up in smoke; if Obama wins the nomination but loses the election, the same thing will happen. We'll see how much "love" the Democrats have for this country when their identity politics and substandard selection procedures put the country in grave danger. It will happen; I have spoken.
lt demonstrates how to make an argument countering criticism. If only the Obamamaniacs were all that capable, he might have chance. Too bad they all will scream whenever Obama is directly challenged at a debate, and Obama himself will continue to run away from press conferences and any other venue where he has to be unscripted.
Interesting analysis, even though I don't really care who wins the dem nomination. The dems, with their convoluted nomination process, have given us a glimpse of what it would be like if they ran everything. Not pretty. Good article!
I'm a conservative republican who wants neither of them in the White House. However, you make a good analysis that not only will Hillary win the nomination, but she offers the best hope for Democrats for winning in November. She matches up much better than Obama does vs. McCain in the key battleground states of Ohio and Florida. The polls clearly state this. The media has fallen into this Obama-mania spell that they can't make a clear analysis. Most republicans I talk to think Obama would be the more beatable candidate for John McCain in November.
Finally someone has the nerve to call the media on their bias. I am a democrat, African American male, and want to win in Nov. but Obama cannot win. Maybe somebody will write what the democratic leadership and the media know and that is, Obama's base is African American. We make up only 13% of the voting population. Over half of our votes are in South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi and Texas. Add the number of African American voters in Illinois and New York, which almost any democrat can win and the is over half of Obama's 13% base. The southern states will vote republican in the general. Hillary has a base of those over 45, Hispanics(the largest minority)and white females. White females make up almost 40% of the voters in every state. What if she got 65% in every state; why not, Obama gets 90% of the African American Votes.
fIRST OF ALL, ITS SENATOR OBAMA,
NOT OBAMA...2ND OF ALL
DESPITE IDIOTS LIKE THIS ONE
(MDR) sENATOR b. oBAMA WILL WIN
ALTHOUGH NOT SURE WHY HE'D EVEN WANT
TO BE PRESIDENT OF THIS MESSED UP
NATION
great post ! i have been saying all along to myself what you have stated here. of course some bo soppoters are not going to admit what the truth is ....obama lost when his pastor scandal broke, then the small town remarks, then his friendship with ayers. america will not put up with him, hillary has won !
I think she *should* have got out before Ohio and Texas. Whatever she gained (in Ohio, she lost in Texas), was wiped out in Wyoming and Miss.
All she's done is split the party, and tarnished whatever legacy she and Bill may have had.
This blog is evidence. After the debate in CA, Democrats were ecstatic to have two great candidates, now the party is split, and half of each half would rather vote Republican.
This is total BS. Hillary has absolutely and recently gone off the deep end via showing her true colors.
She´s DANGEROUS and many democrats and undecided voters will now not vote for her, IF, she by some miracle gets the DNC nomination God help ths country.
She hasn't split the party or tarnished the Clinton legacy, you dimwit! It's Obama that has worked that angle from the beginning with relentless negativity, while you and your fellow worshippers can't see anything but his glorious "transcendance" of the very politics he practices.
Excellent article - I have always been an independent and was leaning towards Obama - but after the debate - it sealed the deal the other direction for me - after much research on Ayers, Rezko, Wright and Larry Sinclair - I would not want someone in the oval office that I would have to worry about their friends.
About time someone in the media gave the truth as it is instead of the way CNN, Dick Morris, Roland Martin and others spin it.
Hopefully Philadelphia will see the light before its too late.
Interesting post, but it ignores the reality of the status of the race.
1. Today, Obama is ahead by 142 delegates.
2. There are so many ways to count the popular vote (include Michigan & Florida, exclude caucus estimates, etc.) that it would be difficult for Clinton to claim herself the popular vote winner without heavy caveats. If you count all of the states' votes where delegates counted going into the race, Obama will be able to claim the popular vote, unless Hillary wins the rest of the states by heavy margins.
3. Do you really think the superdelegates will steal the election from Obama? Afterall, it is delegates, not the popular vote, which officially counts. After the last of the primaries in early June, Obama will be ahead by 100+ delegates. The superdelegates will then fall in-line with Obama....to think otherwise is purely silly. Why would the superdelegates alienate half the party?
4. While Hillary may indeed be stronger in states like Ohio and Florida, Hillary may very well lose Iowa, Wisconsin, Oregon and Minnesota whereas Obama is running very strong in Colorado, Nevada, Iowa, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Virginia and Oregon. Obama's weakness in Ohio and Florida is counterbalanced by his strength in the purple states in the upper midwest and west.
5. Let's not forget that Obama leads in the tracking polls between he and Hillary. When Super Tuesday occurred, Hillary led by several points. If Super Tuesday were held again, the result would be much more pro-Obama. People forget that Obama is about 10 points stronger now than he was on Super Tuesday.
For you new voters, to become president of the United States, you must win in battleground states. No one has ever become president who lose Ohio, Pennsylvania and Florida. You are fooling yourself if you think that Obama can lose these states in the democratic primary and win them in the general. If the democratic party does not decide on a candidate before the end of this week (after Obama loses Pennsylvania big) then they will not only lose the presidency in Nov. but will lose the house and senate, especially if they run Obama.
Superdelegates? Hmmm, I believe they are there to vote for who, as party insiders, they believe has the best chance of winning in November. They would not be "stealing" the election away from the will of the people. In fact, they wouldn't be doing their job if they voted for someone who they believed would NOT win the November election. Otherwise, why have superdelegates? The people vote, unlike ancient caucuses, and a nominee is chosen. No need for superdelegates according to the view of Obama supporters. But, like Florida and Michigan, those are the rules. To shorten this long primary season, I say in the future, just have several Super Tuesdays and this way all states have a say...and only allow ACTUAL democrats to choose who their nominee should be, not independents and not republicans who change their affiliation for a day!
Obama supporters, if you think that Fla and Michigan votes will not count in the end, you do not know much about elections. The democrats are spineless but I do not think that they are stupid enough to exclude a fair election in states they must win in Nov. Also, super delegates work the same way as the electorial college, they are not constitutional binding.
To annonymous who thinks its not fair to include Michigan because Obama took his name off the ballot:
both Obama and Edwards made an agreement with the Democratic party in Michigan that they would be represented on a line that said "uncommitted". Every voter in Michgian who wanted to vote for either Obama or Edwards knew that they could do so by voting the "uncommited" line. It was well publicized and everyone knew it. Which is why "uncommitted" received 39% of the votes, the second largest behind Clinton. The only question would be what part of the uncommitted vote would go to Obama. In every other primary Edwards had gotten about 15% of the vote which would leave 25% to Obama. To err on the side of caution, give Obama 30% of the vote which is extremely generous and then they can count popular vote and delegates based on that. Using that formula Obama wouldnt have a thing to whine about though we all know he will.
To Mr. Weak Analysis --
population of states won is one of the most powerful indicators of a candidates strength, more so than electoral votes because states with small populations are over represented in the electoral college. Regarding Obama's name not being on the ballot -- it was. He made a deal with the Democratic party in Michigan along with Edwards to have voters be able to vote for them using a line which read "uncommitted". Everyone knew it. And it received 39% of the vote. Which doesnt for one second negate the 56% that Clinton received. In other words she landslided him in Michgian.
As for the rest of your argument that "rules are rules" the important question is "whose rules"? and are they valid rules? It sounds to me like you spent an awful lot of time in the principals office. Or maybe you ARE the principal.
One further note: The caucuses were totally skewed in favor of Obama. This is not to say he manipulated them. This is to say that the demographics are clear that Obama's supporters are young, single, and more college educated. Clinton's are blue collar working families and older voters. Caucuses are not the kind of thing were you go and vote and then go home and cook dinner. You spend 4 hours from 8 pm to midnight hagging with people over votes. Not what someone wants to do after a 10 hour shift or what most elderly people are going to do. Either way they the least reperesentive form for choosing a canddidate there is. I suggest you look at a map and color in Clinton's states with Obama's. She has him surrounded.
Hey this is "Mr. Weak Analysis" again.
"population of states won is one of the most powerful indicators of a candidates strength"
---Says who? You? This is the first time I have EVER heard suggested that this be a valid measurement, I suspect because it MAKES NO SENSE. This would only make sense if the entire population of CA was going to vote for Clinton. Give me a break.
Furthermore, this is a primary, not a general election. Victory or loss in a state primary does not translate in any way to a victory or loss in the general election. Reliably democratic states will stay reliably democratic. And Obama (who DOESN'T have over 50% negative polling like Ms. Clinton) has a better chance in other swing states like Colorado, Maine, Minnesota, North Carolina, Washington, Iowa...
But in your view I guess the states with largest populations are the only important ones, huh? Argue against the Electoral College and delegate systems if you want, but it is still the system we are using.
And while I am mentioning CA, it's worth mentioning that Obama is consistently polling higher than Clinton there now…Buyer's remorse? Maybe you should add CA to his "population of states won" non-metric.
"He made a deal with the Democratic party in Michigan... using a line which read 'uncommitted'. Everyone knows it."
---Right. And she said repeatedly, and signed a pledge, that MI and FL wouldn't count. Everyone knows it. To mention again, since you ignored this fact: MICHIGAN'S PRIMARY WAS DECLARED UNCONSTITUTIONAL by a federal judge. To count it is preposterous.
"the important question is 'whose rules'?"
---Oh, lets see... THE DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEE! You know the ones whose nominee we're selecting? Pretty sure THEIR rules are the only ones that matter here.
Your ad hominem attacks aside; I'm not the principal, just someone who believes in playing fair. States pick their method of voting, and did so long before this election. Sure, Obama is able to win more of them, as he's proven. So what? He didn't pick the system; he just played by the rules. Simply because Clinton didn't win a caucus or a primary or a demographic, despite what she would have you believe, does not make it inherently undemocratic.
No one had an issue with caucus states until Clinton started losing. You want to change the method of selecting a democratic nominee? Fine, but it has to happen AFTER this election. We live in a republic where we elect leaders based on the principles of democracy - principles of fairness. Not a monarchy where the queen can change the rules at her whim because it would benefit her.
I applaud your enthusiasm and your attempt to create a rational argument for Clinton even having a chance. The argument just doesn't hold up. There is no way that Clinton can win this election. Assuming a 50-50 split of delegates on May 6th (an extremely generous scenario for Clinton) she will have to win over 85% of the remaining delegates to even BREAK EVEN. It's just impossible.
The superdelegates will not overturn the only valid metric (the delegate count). Especially on a supposed "popular vote" or electoral college or state population (!?) argument that has so many caveats it makes everyone's head spin.
Pleasant debating, and enjoy our upcoming Obama presidency!
My name is Lyn and...
I predict that Hillary WILL be our next WOMAN president of this USA:
Get ready to say:
"Madam President"
For those of you that don't believe my prediction, I must tell you that you WILL be eating crow come November 2008 and January 2009!
Obama has hung "himself" ...
Or you could say he has shot himself in the foot...lol
He did it to himself!
Even though he said (on TV today) that he was outraged with
Rev. Wright's latest statements, Obama, still has "NOT QUIT" the Rev. Wright's church, with it's wrong beliefs against the USA.
You can try to disregard or find fault with the above, or even with me...
BUT that still doesn't change the fact the Hillary will be called "Madam President" in 2009.
Note: The background color on this page is great!
Minnesota is a caucus state, that Obama won. Minnesota's caucuses were representative of Minnesota as a whole. Currently, polling indicates Obama is favored over McCain 52 to 38, where as Clinton is only leading McCain 47 to 43.
Minnesota is a swing state, with a Republican governor (who's rumored to be being considered for V.P. running mate for McCain), one Republican senator, one Democratic one, 3 Republican representatives and 5 Democratic ones. We're split much down the middle. The 14 percent spread over the 3 percent spread is a big difference, and could really matter if Gov. Pawlenty gets the V.P. nod.
Granted Minnesota only has 10 presidential electors, but I'm just trying to point out that eliminating the validity of who won a state merely because it's a caucus state is ridiculous.
Marc, what have you been smoking? (And don't try to tell us you didn't inhale!)
Post a Comment