The latest spin from the Obama campaign (email, so no link).
Our projections show the most likely outcome of yesterday’s elections will be that Hillary Clinton gained 187 delegates, and we gained 183.That’s a net gain of 4 delegates out of more than 370 delegates available from all the states that voted.
For comparison, that’s less than half our net gain of 9 delegates from the District of Columbia alone. It’s also less than our net gain of 8 from Nebraska, or 12 from Washington State. And it’s considerably less than our net gain of 33 delegates from Georgia.
The task for the Clinton campaign yesterday was clear. In order to have a plausible path to the nomination, they needed to score huge delegate victories and cut into our lead.
They failed.
It’s clear, though, that Senator Clinton wants to continue an increasingly desperate, increasingly negative — and increasingly expensive — campaign to tear us down.
The consensus here on BMG, which David and I, at least, have accepted so far (not that that means anything at all, but I’m just saying), is that Clinton has a valid claim to remain in the race given her victories in Ohio and RI and in the Texas primary (although not the caucuses). By this standard, the Obama campaign appears to be getting a bit ahead of itself.
What do you think?
Discuss
24 Comments . Leave a comment below.I mean, this says it all, right?
What nonsense. Her "path" is perfectly "plausible" -- she needs to get superdelegates to vote for her, just like he does. They know that as well as anyone. They're inflating the "task" beyond all recognition, in order to demonstrate that she "failed." Classic strawman argument.
Certainly, Obama himself didn't write this silly email. I hope that he didn't even see it before it went out. It reeks of campaign hackery.
Either the claims are true or not. What I'm reading from disinterested observers is essentially what the Obama camp is saying. See below.
And here's Chuck Todd from (non-partisan) National Journal:
I don't know ... I think "mathematically possible" is a more accurate take than "plausible."
here. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21...
which somehow devised a rating system by which Obama is more liberal than Bernie Sanders??
And funny -- John Kerry was named "most liberal" in early 2004. What a coincidence.
OK, maybe they are hacks. Can you prove Todd's got something up his sleeve with his analysis?
I mentioned this in another thread: [According to The Atlantic's Marc Ambinder http://marcambinder.theatlanti... the delegate math is really, really lousy for Hillary right now.
Give it a look. The numbers are predicated on a pretty severe shift away from Obama -- that he really peters out.
Seems to me that's a perfectly plausible scenario. What about it requires Obama "petering out"? Also, he doesn't include MI and FL, and I just think something do-over-ish has to happen there.
I'd say Ambinder's "Gertrude" scenario confirms the silliness of the Obama email.
The way it allocates delegates totally ignores how they are actually allocated. For instance, in Puerto Rico where all of the districts have 4 delegates, Clinton needs to win with more than 62.5% in a district to do better than come away with an even delegate split.
Also, the number of undeclared superdelegates is now less than 300, where that model assumed there were ~350.
BTW, here is a good summary of the superdelegate situation
What metric do we judge 'the will of the people'?
Certainly, Obama will maintain a lead (albeit a slim one) in pledged delegates.
But here are the popular vote count w/ FL included:
13,533,300 Obama 13,246,154 Clinton
(Clinton leads w/ MI included)
At the end of the road, it is quite possible that Clinton will have the edge in total votes cast.
So the popular mandate for superdelegates may be uncertain...
...whithout MI and FL. If I were her, I'd stay in as long as the specter of those two stripped states are on the table. Otherwise, her only reason for staying in the race is hoping for an anit-Obama bombshell on which she can capitalize. I mean, by what kind of margins would Hillary have to win by to finish primary season in stronger shape delegate-wise (not including MI & FL)? I also read that even with Florida, Obama has 300,000 more votes when all the primary votes are totaled. I think it would take a miracle for Hillary to be in the strongets position at the end of the day, unless she gets MI and FL back in the picture and does well.
I know people are against a unified BHO/HRC ticket, but the results yesterday just solidify my belief that the best thing for the party and for the Dem ticket would be a joint ticket. They raised a combined $85M in February. How could nominee Clinton eschew Obama's fundraising, email list, volunteer network, campaign organization, the crowds BHO draws, his broad appeal, at al? And how could nominee Obama discount Hillary's long-time passionate supporters, her strong victories in the Ohios, Californias, Floridas, etc, her national Brand and her fundraising, her ability to demolish in debate any Repub veep nominee, the chance to get her out of the Senate where she might be seen as "obstructionist", and so on?
I said it before, both of these campaigns have to much energy and substance that failing to synergize the two could mean the lost opportunity for something truly momentous.
I can't see any one Dem that could equal, let alone exceed, the benefit of having one or the other as the VP nominee. Any new face on the trail (except maybe Edwards who had his shot) would have to build a national brand, fundraising, and campaign apparatus virtually from scratch. Plus, with a joint ticket, it eliminates the possibility of a Lieberman v.2008
... is what is good for a more progressive trend in US Politics (being a devout Independent I would not use the term good of the party) then it should go HRC/BHO 2008 & 2012 then BHO 2016 & 2220.
...is scared of a super delegate slug fest. Clinton has decades of goodwill thanks to millions of dollars of campaign dollars earned for a very healthy percentage of the current super delegates as a result of the support efforts of her and her husband. Obama doesn't really have a bargaining chip except his "momentum" and if she slows that down sufficiently and gets her own going enough he is going to have a tough time at the bargaining table behind closed doors.
Clinton: So and so representative from State B, so you are still undecided - I know things are tough sometimes - like when you were running ten years ago and Bill and I had that fundraiser for you that raised 400,000.00 - anyway, what do I have to do to get your vote?
Obama: So and so representative from State B, so you are still undecided - I'm popular and have momentum. What do I have to do to get your vote?
If I were him I'd be afraid too.
If superdelegates tilt this thing to Hillary, despite more delegates and votes for Obama (both of which seem likely to hold), you do face the possibility of a fractured and under-motivated Democratic party come November.
I for one tend not to like it when elections don't honor the popular will (see e.g. 2000), and one of the reasons I support Obama is b/c I'm sick of the current Democratic national leadership, by and large, Hillary included.
....you must be very unhappy with lots of elections since our system, at least as far as presidential politics go, is not set up to follow the popular vote.
What happens if HRC has the actual popular vote but Obama leads in delegates? What then?
Like it or not the super delegates are there and they don't have to follow the popular vote.
Are you from MA? Are you sending letters to all the MA super delegates that are endorsing Obama? What about the popular vote in MA? Where is the line drawn? How is popular vote defined?
If there is a fractured and under-motivated democratic party come November that will just prove that Obamomentum wasn't a legitimate engagement of political participation for its own sake but mere fandom.
You are right. I am very unhappy about:
1824 - Adams vs Jackson 1876 - Hayes vs Tilden 1888 - Harrison vs Cleveland 2000 - Bush vs Gore
These are the presidential races where the winner of the popular vote lost the election.
I support the National Popular Vote Bill, so my position on this matter is completely consistent.
The other questions you ask are all fair. Clinton won in my district, and my rep is uncommitted. To whom should she commit? I couldn't really begrudge her going with Clinton. But given how things shook out in '92 betwixt Mrs. Clinton and Tsongas, I'm not so sure she'll go that way.
My issue would be with superdelegates who go against both their local constituencies (those that have them) as well as the national delegate and vote counts. In particular, my concern is with those DNC superdelegates who don't have a local constituency. If they as a group provide the difference, I will be pissed.
False. If Clinton were to seize the nomination despite having fewer delegates and the lower popular vote, that is precisely the "old kind of politics" that Obamatrons like myself find objectionable. I won't be upset because my guy lost, I will be upset because of how he lost.
Speaking for myself, I have become active in town politics recently; I'm the chair of a committee in my town. I can't credit either Obama or Deval Patrick before him for motivating me to get involved, but my involvement is consistent with their encouragement of participation.
..."old kind of politics"???
that doesn't mean anything. It is a folksy, empty talking point.
You advocate slicing the super delegates in Obama's favor because it fits your ends and then claim that a different result equals just what you oppose even though you impose constraints on independent actors only to the extent that they defeat your purpose...and then claim that your objection is not based in your loss but the method in which you lost even though you have decided the method that should be employed contrary to the method that actually exists. In short, you rig the system in your favor, but if you lose it is because the system was rigged.
Based on the fact that you have engaged in local politics your commitment to change seems real. That is where change actually happens. Bottom up. Not top down. That, however, does not change the fact that if Hillary wins it will be deserved and proper and within the rules set by the party.
I'm sorry, but I simply cannot embrace the notion that the rally cry of one candidate not being heeded by an entire nation is legitimate basis for fracturing the party in advance of the most important presidential election in a century. Frankly it seems very totalitarian and eerily like the Bush doctrine. Just because Hillary supporters are not with you does not mean they are against you. It is very dangerous to draw lines in the sand because of a cult of personality.
The question is, which is better for us.
To my mind, it isn't saying Clinton should get out of the race. But it does say that she shouldn't run a "desperate" and "negative" campaign. I think they're trying to lay down rules of engagement. The Clinton camp might interpret those rules as disarmament, but I think they make sense. If we have several months of Clinton and McCain attacking Obama (and Obama and McCain attacking Clinton) then the only cause that is being advanced is McCain's. Can anyone explain to me how that's good for the Democratic party?
trying to set the bar for Clinton impossibly high, i.e. she must either win with pledged delegates alone or quit.
No one will win on pledges alone, though someone will have more pledged delegates than the other. (That may be Obama, and certainly would be if his supporters could stop the clock now. But they can't, so the show must go on.)
As spin goes I don't see this getting any traction any more, maybe among the faithful. So, not even good spin.
I got the same email, but you didn't quote the part I questioned the most. One line of the message claims that the campaign is still 150 votes ahead in delegate count. I don't know where that figure came from. They are not now and never have been that far ahead; it's closer to 100.
Desperate to me means pushing a dusty and weak nonstory on tax returns to distract the media. Desperate to me is attacking Hillary Clinton on a tack that only works if George W Bush is helping you make your claim.
I don't think so. The Clintons used to be very timely in disclosing tax returns, as are most politicians. Why the delay? It's a fair question.
The one that Canada's foremost private newscaster is standing behind, with named sources that can't get a consistent denial out two days running?
Hey, they tried to make the tax returns an issue with Dean and didn't work. But if Obama wants to make an attack based on the idea that Bush is being competent and honest, and Hillary is lying, they're welcome to do so.
... what's going on in Canuckistan?
« Blue Mass Group Front Page
Thu 23 May 11:16 AM