Hillary dismisses the results of this week-end:
Hillary Clinton on Monday explained away Barack Obama’s clean sweep of the weekend’s caucuses and primaries as a product of a caucus system that favors “activists” and, in the case of the Louisiana primary, an energized African-American community.
She told reporters who had gathered to watch her tour a General Motors plant here that “everybody knew, you all knew, what the likely outcome of these recent contests were.”
“These are caucus states by and large, or in the case of Louisiana, you know, a very strong and very proud African-American electorate, which I totally respect and understand.”
Submit your own Monty Python videos.
And before anyone starts, I do not think Hillary was trying to inject race into the, umm, race. She was merely pointing out the obvious, even if I disagree with her assessment that the results were meaningless. She is hemoraging support, and Obama is gaining momentum rapidly.
Oh, how I wish I were able to post a pony photo…
Hmm. What’s she going to say after tomorrow’s results? You know, at some point (and I’ll go out on a limb here a say it’s before the Texas hybrid pri/caucus) all the races Obama is winning certainly do matter.
The Other Steve
Why is she attacking Obama supporters?
It seems to me like it’d be a better strategy to admit she failed to connect, and she’s going to do a harder job of delivering her message to the voters.
Oh, but hell, I’m not as smart as Mark Penn.
Nim, ham hock of liberty
Well, Ms. Clinton, if those states’ primary processes don’t represent the will of the Democratic voters, you should use your considerable influence and ability to have the party change the processes.
In the meantime, you played the games there and lost. Those delegates will play just as much of a role as the delegates from anywhere else (except MI and FL….)
right. That explains why she took 58% of the white vote in Louisiana.
I mean, do you even bother to think about what you write? The Clinton campaign put very little effort into the “caucus” states, and concentrated on the primary states — especially those which were key to winning in November. So while Obama had a “stunning” win in Idaho caucuses on super tuesday, gaining a 12 delegate advantage over Hillary, Hillary beat Obama by 10 points in the crucial state of New Jersey — gaining an 11 delegate advantage there. Now, I don’t know about you, but I think that the New Jersey victory is a lot more important than the Idaho one…even though Obama did get more of a delegate advantage from Idaho than Clinton got from NJ.
Nice math, P Luk. In the race to acquire more delegates than her opponent, getting fewer delegates is more important. Hmm…
A delegate here and a delegate there, and soon you’re talking a serious election!
look a jackalope from p.lum. Who could have guessed?
P.luk, how the hell does that show that Obama doesn’t have momentum going into upcoming primaries? Maybe Hillary wasn’t race-baiting today, but you certainly are, unless you’d care to suggest a more charitable interpretation of your statement.
Not to mention the fact that New Jersey is attached at the hip to NY and shares a media market with New York and the fact that she only won by ten points in a state that Obama only contested at the last minute and was down by more than 20 points in just four weeks prior to the vote is the real story here. A year ago could anyone have imagined that under ANY circumstances ANY opponent of Hillary’s could have taken New Jersey from her?
a more charitable intepretation is that he’s just an idiot. Why not both?
Remind me again, what state borders New Jersey? Is it New York? Isn’t that the state Hillary hails from as a Senator?
Now, further remind me which state Idaho is next to? No, seriously, I have no idea. I’m just fairly confident its not Indiana. Hillary can win in her backyard state of New Jersey by half what she was projected to win by (they were predicting 60/40 as early as December). Obama can win everywhere else. Yup, sounds about even to me. Hillary has this one all locked up. One questions why she’s even bothering to campaign. Tortoise and the hair, kids. By 2016, Hillary will totally be crossing the finish line with the most delegates.
See? Caucus states and Black states don’t count! Or, as Yglesias said:
Can somebody please explain what “Magic Unity Pony” is supposed to mean? I just dont get it. The pony thing, sure. But what “unity”? Unity for what? Who?
As per topic, Hill has most of the SupahDellys wrapped around her campaign. Ergo, she’ll be nearly impossible to beat, says one article I read. Not sure what a Superdelegate is either, and why they have such super powers.
She is merely pointing out the obvious, but why? why? why? If she’s not injecting race into the race, why do they keep bringing up the black vote. Yes, politicans are angling for voting blocks and talk about attracting/losing them (in private), but why keep mentioning it in public? I don’t think serious Republican Candidates would blame a loss on the black vote (yes we all know it would be true), unless they’re getting at something else. Again, why keep pointing it out? Seems like the classy thing would be to congratulate him and move on. Anyway, you’re right, she’s not running a good campaign and it’s showing.
BOB DOLE LIKES TO SAY “BOB DOLE!”
P.luk, how the hell does that show that Obama doesn’t have momentum going into upcoming primaries?
I cited that statistic to rebut John’s claim that Hillary is hemoraging support.
I do disagree with Hillary’s take on the caucuses, however. It wasn’t “activists” — Obama put a lot more resources into getting people to the caucuses than did Hillary — it was a smart move by Obama, because without those deep red state caucus victories on super-tuesday, he would have been declared in deep trouble by the media.
More to the point, it was a dumb move by Clinton to assume that she’d have this thing signed, sealed, and delivered by Super Tuesday.
I know why you cited it. My question was how it shows that John is wrong.
Obama won as far Northwest as possible, as far Northeast as possible, as far South as possible and in the dead damn center of the country. That’s just flat out remarkable, doesn’t have to be spun and can’t be undone.
The Other Steve
How is it that voters in New Jersey are more important than voters in Idaho?
Are Minnesota voters less important than California because Obama won our state handidly?
That’s just an incredible statement.
What a strategy leading into the general election! Dismiss everyone who did not vote for you in the primary because you will not need them to win the general. What brilliance!
Hillary thinks Texas and Ohio will be more receptive to her “bread and butter message”? Hillary, your bread is dry and stale, and your butter is rancid.
Well, while dismissing the Louisiana vote as blacks voting for one of their own, at least Hillary can “totally respect and understand” their decision to do so.
The Magical Unity Pony needs to drop a load in her lap.
The Other Steve
She only has 200 committed. There are 800+ total.
I have not seen a big influx of endorsements since Super Tuesday towards Clinton. There have been quite a few towards Obama, but I’m not sure how many of those are superdelegates. Obviously Rep. Obey in Wisconsin, and a few others though.
When you’re running a 50% + 1 campaign, only the voters in the places that will put you over the top matter. It’s just rare to see a politician come out and admit it.
Yes, but YOU John are a racist for NOT supporting Hillary.
Bunker mentality? Or is that too extreme of a description of what is and what will be coming out of the Clinton campaign over the next few weeks?
Ummm…yeah. Thanks for…uh…clearing that up, or something.
No, no, John is not a racist for not supporting Hillary. He’s a sexist. Please.
OT BUT IMPORTANT
The final vote giving the U.S. government the power to wiretap you without a warrant and to give telecoms immunity for having broken the law vis a vis same is tomorrow. Sen. Leahy has a link thingie to e-mail your senators and ask them to stand with Dodd, Leahy and Feingold against this crap. Here it is.
Please do it. If you can make some phone calls too. It might be nice to save the 4th amendment, not to mention rule of law. Thanks!
Yes. And the Titanic was just a boating mishap.
Caucuses seemed to matter when Sen. Clinton won Nevada.
Also, since when is Texas a big Democratic must win state?
Please come together to support the wife of the first black president in the name of racial unity.
I know why you cited it. My question was how it shows that John is wrong.
it was used to show that John had no basis upon which to make the unequivocal claim that Hillary was hemoraging support. Indeed, for all the talk about Hillary’s “problem” with white men, she beat Obama in that demographic in Louisiana by 20 points.
I think that super-tuesday showed that if anyone was hemoraging support, it was Obama. California, New Jersey, and Massachusetts were shockers — Connecticut was close, and only in Delaware was Obama able to pull out a convincing, important win — and that was based on black turnout as well. The election calendar has stopped the Obama hemoraging, and given him momentum again… but there is a difference between that, and saying that Hillary is hemoraging support.
Caidence (fmr. Chris)
Shorter P. Luk: Obama doesn’t get the Big Mo’ until the White kids in Jena offer to shine his shoes.
Ever since Hillary needed it to be.
I just find it Hillary-ous that Clinton thinks she’s going to take Texas. Especially after Obama’s rally topped her own by 3:1 margins back in May, before the MUP built up a full head of steam.
Nevada was not important — except that the media paid so much attention to it.
And, in terms of winning in the general election, Texas isn’t important, and little attention should be paid to it. But, like Nevada, the media will make it important, which means that Clinton and Obama have to treat it as important.
Its time for you to face a few facts. Blacks make up no more than 10-12% of the overall electorate, and in general, those states where they make up a larger proportion of the electorate are states that are generally dominated by Republicans.
Obama’s strategy for winning the nomination is smart — rack up big majorities in deep red states with caucuses, and in states where a large percentage of the Democratic electorate is black while keeping the other states within 10 points or so.
But that doesn’t translate into a general election strategy. The race that Hillary is running is designed to help her win in the general election… but its turning out to be a bad one for the primaries.
Caidence (fmr. Chris)
The logic is that the Bradley Effect for Obama only works where there are White people that actually deal with Black people.
All Blacks, all vote for Black guy. All Whites, all vote for “Multi-cultural” guy. Some Whites, “Crap, my janitor is Black! I can’t elect a janitor for President! Save me, White Hillary!!”
If Hillary has that info (likely), then it goes a good distance towards WTF she’s doing with her campaign.
In a discussion with Lanny Davis, Tucker Carlson had a good rejoinder on this point: “Exactly. Now me, when I go to vote, I just go for the white male, without even looking.”
Caidence (fmr. Chris)
Drop the attitude, kid. You don’t dictate to us what the issues are, because that’s what we’re doing here: trying to hammer out what’s going on.
Also, you can’t dictate because…
… you have no idea what the fuck you’re talking about.
This is PRIMARIES season. We’re talking about PRIMARIES. Obama is gaining the momentum in the PRI MAR IES. We DO NOT use general election results to determine who to nominate at the convention. Guess why? Think chronologically.
WTF are you doing being an ass while talking about the wrong subject? We’re all busy being snarky in regards TO THE PRIMARIES.
My guess on the meaning of “UNITY PONY”:
– recall that a cliche expression for wishful childish thinking is: [maybe someone] will “give us a pony” [as in, what a wonderful suprise birthday gift]. In other words, it means totally unrealistic expectations that some fond wish can be made to happen.
So when John uses the phrase “unity Pony” in connection with Obama, he is being cynical about the prospects Obama will be capable of delivering on the promise of overcoming partisan divisiveness in finding solutiions to our country’s problems. In other words, Obama may indeed be infinitely preferable to any of the Republicans (or maybe even Hillary) but he will face the same old shit in trying to actually implement anything constructive. Whereas it would all work if only the unity pony was real.
What the hell are you smoking? California, New Jersey and Massachusetts were “shockers”? HELLO, she had 15-20 point leads in those states right up to the primaries! If anything, Obama managed to close the gap by quite a bit. Unreal.
And only Delaware as a convincing, important win? Not Colorado, or Missouri, or Minnesota, or Maine, or Washington? Oh, that’s right, I forgot—all those states don’t count, right?
Caidence (fmr. Chris)
Regarding numbers up until Cali, gentle reminder that: Zogby was smoking, and we were getting a big contact high off of his miserable numbers.
Not to mention Zogby’s crank plus MUP’s smack created a synergistic effect.
Yeah, and the SurveyUSA poll had the final results pegged almost exactly. And we still don’t know exactly what the impact of early voting was, but it certainly wasn’t in Obama’s favor.
John, your use of the phrase “flesh wound” and the word hemoragging in conjunction with HRC is offensive and sexist and don’t pretend you didn’t do that on purpose!
Believe me this is a big one over at the GOS as well. It’s practically Leona Helmsley like only instead of “Only the little people pay taxes” it’s “Who cares what the entire country thinks I won CA, NY and MA.”
It’s even funnier listening to the Clinton supporters try to spin it.
Either part of or deluded by the spin machine: “I think that super-tuesday showed that if anyone was hemoraging support, it was Obama. California, New Jersey, and Massachusetts were shockers—-”
Had Obama won those 3 states, the election would be over. He didn’t. But his poll numbers have been going up consistently over time, and Hillary’s have remained flat, in most States and with most demographic groups (except African-Americans who dumped the Clintons wholesale, and rightfully so).
Hillary supporters pushing the spin that she’s the better general election candidate is damn good theater, but beyond stupid. It’s like independent voters didn’t exist! They are well over 30% of the electorate. And the “she’s tough, she’s vetted, she’ll run a better campaign” has been almost proven false; she hasn’t run a better campaign (see: Penn, Doyle, Bill), Obama has proven he can win swing voters in swing states without getting nasty, and as for her being vetted, I’d say that she’s wounded, with previous rounds of vetting contributing to her stubbornly high negatives. I actually think she could turn around some of those negatives with independents in a general election campaign, but wouldn’t it be smart to nominate someone who can bring in new voters, bring over independents and disgruntled Republicans (and there are many), and keep the Democrats united?
The spin around here can really make a person dizzy sometimes.
Hillary is gonna have a rough February. The question for her is what will March be like.
I can easily think of scenarios where Obama’s momentum is a virtual tidal wave by Spring. I can also think of several others where he has turned into a falling star.
Until now he’s been the underdog and challenger, and he’s the latest fashion. Obamamania is cool right now. But will it last?
Now he’s the frontrunner, which makes him a target. Will the positive attention from the media continue, or will they start looking for flaws? If they look, what will they find?
Gary Hart was the upstart challenger, and so was Howard Dean. Ross Perot was ahead of Bill Clinton at one point in 1992. They all crashed and burned before they reached the finish line.
“There is many a slip, between the cup and the lip”
Hillary Clinton hates black people.
Yes. They’ve run a very smart campaign, while Clinton fell into all the smug front-runner traps available. Good for them.
A lot of other people were dumb that way, too. Given the situation as late as a few weeks ago, it was a reasonable assumption, considering that Super Tuesday was made to order for her. A funny thing happened to me on my way to the White House……
that isn’t right at all. hillary’s strategy is designed for winning the primary also. she’s aiming at high population centers and hoping a big enough spread nets her enough delegates to make up for the rest.
for a primary race strategy, it works as long as your opponent isn’t able to keep your lead in the large states low. unfortunately for her, obama is that opponent. by pulling off such good numbers in e.g. CA, he’s managed to take away the delegate advantage she was banking on.
but as a general election strategy? horrible. if her general election strategy is concentrating mostly on states like CA, NY and MA that are gonna be a dem lock in november no matter what, then she would lose for sure.
Actually, this is what I would expect any experienced politician to do at this point. What other choice does she have but to try to spin Obama’s victories as not so great?
Still, it’s never good to be in the position of having to try and minimize losses. But its normal for politics and nothing to really criticize her for.
Ummmm – what about Washington? Not a red state. Definitely not a lot of African Americans. He won here by like 30%.
Hillay should learn to take loses becuase they happen a lot
Former raised and lived in Spokanite until 32 years old here, and while the west part of Washington state is blue, the center and east side lean purple/red. The Seattle/Tacoma area basically keeps the state blue though. I am glad I don’t live in Spokane any more though. The politics of the town sucked royally, the police and sheriffs departments are an embarrassment to the uniform and it is a big town that keeps trying to pretend it is small.
The margin that Obama won by in Washington state shows that he is attracting people from across the spectrum, and it speaks well of his appeal to people. Obama will ‘grow the party’ if he is the democratic choice. No doubt about it.
Well this is interesting:
What happened to the Obama surge?
Well, while Rasmussen Reports Daily Presidential Tracking Poll has those same figures, they also say:
In the general:
Obama/McCain – 44/40
Clinton/McCain – 43/45
Likely voters, viewed favorably/unfavorably:
Clinton – 48/50
Obama – 52/45
Democratic voters, viewed favorable:
Clinton – 78
Obama – 72
Rasmussen Markets, perception of primary win:
Clinton – 29.1
Obama – 71.0
So while the current Clinton/Obama likely voter ratings are at 46/41, that is only part of the story. I like the polls behind the polls as they provide better depth than a single result.
Fly Magical Unity Pony! Fly! ;)
sez John Wayne Caidence.
It’s possible to support Hillary without completely losing touch with reality, pluk. You should try it.
I think we need to arrange an intervention. Caidence is definitely strung out on kool-aid.
what, outside of sweeping every state primary since super tuesday? and likely sweeping the potomac primaries today? gone with the wind, i guess.