Blue Mass Group

Reality-based commentary on politics.

Obama Campaign in Trouble

By

Two looming problems for Obama are Florida and Michigan. Although a revote in Florida looks all but dead, it will be hard to ignore the state’s delegates at the national convention (or Clinton’s firm lead among them). In Michigan, it looks as if a deal has been made for a revote. Now, it appears as if Obama is dragging his feet. The Clinton campaign is calling him out on the issue of a revote, which means more bad press.

With momentum shifting toward Clinton, a Michigan revote could be trouble for Obama. A Michigan loss, after his expected loss in Pennsylvania, could create the perfect storm to wipe out his presidential bid. Timing is important in politics, and the reality of American politics has reached Obama at the wrong time.

Please share widely!
fb-share-icon
Tweet
0

Comments

  1. The momentum can shift to Clinton dramatically but the math is in.

    <

    p>Hillary will not win the most delegates, states, or popular vote.

    <

    p>When Huckabee was in the position everyone realized he was over.

    <

    p>Hillary will need to win by superdelegates only, thus tearing apart the party.  

    • to Mr. Obama.  Worse, he will need to win by way of a disasterous snub of two states that will be essential in November.  Hello, Florida delegates, go poop in your hat, we could give two shaving cream cans what you think.  Oh, would you please help with GOTV in NOvember, because, well, we might not be able to win without you.  Sorry about that whole convention thing.

      <

      p>Huckabee didn’t withdraw when he couldn’t win; he withdrew when McCain couldn’t lose.  The Dem campaign is a statemate to date.

      • Given the importance of the war, court appointments (primarily the supreme court), health care, and all the other issues in which Hillary and Barack agree with each other and disagree with John, I can’t see even 0.1% of people deciding to vote for John because of the DNC. I do not believe people are that stupid. People just assume they are that stupid.

    • That’s a stretch, even for a huge Obama supporter.

      <

      p>And to be fair, the nomination doesn’t hinge on the most delegates, states or the popular vote.  It is contingent on reaching 2025 delegates.  Those are the rules and I know how much you guys love the rules.  

    • are willing to put up the money for a redo primary in MI.  This is a state that Obama will do well in or maybe even win.  Obama is fighting an election and the will of the people.  I’ll tell you one thing, that ain’t good.  It will add to his slumping numbers.

      • And the icing on the cake is that at this point in time, Obama will not be elected by the voters of USA.

        <

        p>Somehow the democratic party imploded. It was in the stars or karma or whatever. Two very strong minority candidates who in and of themselves were attractive to almost exactly 50% of each camp in the democratic party and no one is backing down. Then it appears that the leading candidate or most likely candidate is politically flawed and unelectable. What are the chances?

        • unless they can convince him to be second on the ticket.  They won’t do that unless Clinton wins out in the primaries and his poll numbers continue to droop.  He has put his finger in the dike, but we’ll have to wait to see if it holds.

      • Straight from the horse’s mouth in that state tonight.  

        <

        p>Over.  Nothing to see here, move on.  

          • there’s something about elected officials and dimwitted party hacks in two big states willfully disenfranchising their own constituents and then blaming it on someone else afterwards that’s not just short-sighted but downright culpable!

            • Boil that down to a 30-second ad, and spend a lot of Obama’s millions to air it.  Because that’s what he’s going to have to do to make up for his refusal to acknowledge those voters when politically inconvenient.

                • the obama campaign was threatening lawsuits yesterday if there was a do-over there.  explanation?

                • helping that situation by threatening a lawsuit if MI has a re-do?  sure smacks of “i can’t win there so they shouldn’t be allowed a re-do” to me.

                • The problem is that the MI proposal leaves too many voters out in the cold.  Excluding all the independents and cross-overs (who could just as easily vote for HRC, btw) would yield a result as screwy as that of the first, invalid primary.  Better to be inclusive and absorb a smattering of double dippers than to accept a half measure that people would be bitching about for years to come.  

                • What specifically has he done in order to ensure that the people of MI will have their say?  We can list what he has done to make sure that doesn’t happen.  To say it’s difficult is ridiculous to me.

                • to administrate elections.  Perhaps you should direct your queries to Terri Lynn Land, Jennifer Granholm or Mark Brewer.  They created this fiasco.

        • All Michigan needs is Obama’s support.  But he’s not giving his support, he rather that the people of MI not have a voice.  Very poor, it’s embarrassing to the Democratic Party.

          • My wife went to a talk with James Roosevelt, co-chairman of the DNC Rules Committee, earlier this week.

            <

            p>Here’s the deal: MI is an open primary.  But voters who voted in the Republican primary wouldn’t be able to vote in a Democratic re-vote; they already voted.

            <

            p>There are people who chose to vote in the R primary rather than the D, because a) the D didn’t count, and b) there was only one major candidate on that ballot.

            <

            p>Anyone Democrat who chose to vote instead in the R primary which was both competitive and counted would be disenfranchised in a D revote.

            <

            p>That’s a problem!!

            • is it fair that people will have gotten to vote in primaries for two different parties?

              <

              p>I think that is a fair point to make, but personally I think that people who already voted in the Republican primary should not get to vote again on the Democratic side.

              <

              p>Wait, here is a goofy idea: The Republican primary only resulted in half as many delegates as it normally would, so you could argue that people who voted in that primary only used up half of their vote. Let them use the other half of their vote in the Democratic primary.

              • People who did something reasonable (vote in a primary that counted, with a full slate of candidates) end up penalized.

                <

                p>This is unfair to them and frankly unfair to Obama; I haven’t seen any data, but as Obama wasn’t on the D ballot, it’s plausible that more Obama-leading types voted in the other primary.

                <

                p>I think FL/MI should get ~half of their delegates.  Giving them a full slate generates a moral hazard.  So I like your idea.

            • What has Obama done to ensure that MI voters are not disenfranchised?  I’m sorry, but a lawsuit to make sure the vote doesn’t happen isn’t it.

    • she still very well could win the popular vote (especially if Florida and Michigan can somehow have their say; and shame on the party if they can’t figure out a way to make that happen), and if things keep going in this direction for Obama, she may be able to win the vote that actually counts: delegates.

      • It would be very difficult for her to get the popular vote at this point, whatever happens in MI and FL. On what figures are you basing your statement?

        • If she wins big enough, she could add around 250,000 in Florida and about the same in Penn, and add a decent amount in Michigan too. It’s an upward clime, but certainly not outside the range of possibilities. I’m not exactly unique in thinking she can take the popular vote, especially with the way the momentum is going lately.  

          • The polls are about even in MI. So if you give Clinton 500k for FL+PA, she is still 200k short without considering states like NC and OR where she is not expected to win. It is not impossible for her to get the popular vote, but she would have to have a FL revote and would have to win almost all of the remaining contests. I think that is very unlikely.

            <

            p>

            • I’ve said it’s an uphill clime. Maybe she wins by 300,000 in Fl/PI? Maybe she doesn’t.

              <

              p>To find out the answer to those questions

              <

              p>is

              <

              p>why

              <

              p>we

              <

              p>have

              <

              p>elections.

              <

              p>You should try it sometime. Democracy is kinda fun.  

              • I think I understand what elections are for, and I am not one of those people screaming for Clinton to drop out. My only point was that I thought overestimating her chance of winning the popular vote. She has very little chance of doing that, and if this report is to be believed, at least some people in the Clinton campaign agree.

                • i’ve been doing this too long. I’ve forgot how not to be patronizing. I just don’t get all the point to analyzing the data; we place too much emphasis on the horse race, significantly taking away from our ability to actually elect candidates on the merits. This race, believe it or not, is going to get closer in the end than it already is… and it’s already been one of the closest Democratic primaries ever.

    • It could well end with Clinton having a majority of votes and plurality of delegates.  And all the pollings saying 60% of Democrats favor her, along with her the candidate much better head-to-head against McCain.

      <

      p>  

  2. This is entirely anecdotal, but I’ve seen quite a few people in quite a few venues announce that they decided to get behind Obama after seeing him yesterday.

    <

    p>The polls being conducted right now will be the interesting ones.

        • PRINCETON, NJ — New Gallup Poll Daily tracking March 16-18 finds Hillary Clinton with a 49% to 42% lead over Barack Obama in national Democratic voters’ presidential nomination preference.

          <

          p>This is the first time Clinton has held a statistically significant lead in over a month. She last led Obama in Feb. 7-9 polling, just after the Super Tuesday primaries. Since then, the two candidates have usually been in a statistical tie, but Obama has held a lead in several of the polls, most recently in March 11-13 polling.

          <

          p>Check out all of the polls on realclearpolitics.com.
          North Carolina may even now be in play.

          • –The poll that would be more significant would be one that started a day or two after Obama’s speech.

            <

            p>–National opinion polls are largely worthless because the popular vote is of secondary importance to the state-by-state accumulation of electoral college votes. Ask Al Gore. It’s harder, but to get a more accurate picture you have to follow state polls of each candidate vs McCain.

  3. The whole “they threw the kitchen sink at her and she’s still standing” thing.

    <

    p>It’s not a new argument. It’s not a bad argument.

    <

    p>But how on earth does it signify “Obama campaign in trouble?”

  4. He peddles his rubbish in a “U.S. allied monarchy” here. Remember when he pretty much said that if Kerry won the election there would be a major terrorist attack? I wonder what people would think if a prominent Democrat said something like that about McCain winning, like if I were to say something totally off-the-wall irresponsible two days before the election like, “If Obama loses, it is more than conceivable that there will be race riots comparable to Watts in the sixties.” (o.k., let’s assume that I was someone famous and supposedly credible) Do you think I might get locked up for shouting “fire” in a crowded theater?

      • the almost 4000 soldiers who died because of a minister in Illinois’ right to free speech.  

        • Think you can snark without dragging those poor souls into it?  There are people who lost those poor kids who wouldn’t take it too kindly.  

          • But I would take it none to kindly that the idiots in charge went there, and went there badly besides, in the first place. Many of the families of vets or those serving know who’s at fault, and they know it ain’t an angry pastor from IL.

  5. but she is not in very great shape either.

    <

    p>I really don’t think she has the materials to build a convincing enough narrative to win the more than 2/3rds of the remaining superdelegates she will need to win.

  6. I do not understand what I take to be an attack on John Sasso, with a gratuitous link to video. Perhaps your years of political experience allows you to rate Mr. Sasso, but I’d appreciate some evidence that questions his ability to rate campaigns.

    • I am hearing a lot of conservative democratic and independent women I work with all say they will vote McCain.  If that is a trend that is a problem.

      • was a great progressive governor of this state, and John Sasso is a seasoned political strategist for Kerry and corporate clients.  It is unfair to for you to dismiss him in this way, which I find to be a failing of this blog.

        • and I think he continues to be a force for good as a teacher, as an organizer, as an advocate for expanded mass transit (among many other things), and as an all around good citizen of Brookline and the Commonwealth.  Obviously, he should have won on the merits.

          <

          p>But let’s face it:  Sasso has a tin ear and his best efforts served the Duke poorly in the national race.  It is not unfair to judge the man by his works.

          <

          p>

          • John Sasso is a credible commentator on the political scene because of his incredible length and depth of experience.

            <

            p>Truth be told, political consultants and campaign managers often come away with the most valuable insights, lessons and understandings after unsuccessful races. That Sasso has known both victorious and disappointing campaign efforts on the state and national scene surely adds, not detracts, to his credentials.

            <

            p>Just because you don’t agree with a commentators opinion does not make them wrong. I concur with the poster who thinks belittling the messenger rather than discussing the points presented is too often a failing of this blog.

            <

            p>  

            • for indulging in ad hominem criticisms.

              <

              p>Your point about the lessons of losing is a good one. Nonetheless, Sasso’s seasoned perspective seems to have availed him naught in this instance.

  7. You did notice that the blog post was dated 12/27/2007?  How is this relevant to now?

  8. With all due respect to Mark Bail and John Sasso, it’s Hillary Clinton’s campaign that’s in trouble.

    <

    p>Obama’s speech on race was a tour d’force.  It went a long way to putting his pastor problem behind him, but it did much more that I think will become more evident as time goes on.

    <

    p>Hillary and her backers can no longer portray Obama as an empty suit who only gives nice speeches.  We’ve known for a while that Obama was in a league of his own with respect to his rhetorical skills.  However, Monday’s speech revealed much more; courage, compassion, strength and grace under pressure, loyalty and an ability to speak authentically about a difficult subject that Hillary Clinton would never be able to match.

    <

    p>So while the portly, pricey Mark Penn prattles on about “testing and vetting” Obama, just remember that the wonderful, inspiring and yes, historic speech that was delivered on Monday was Obama’s latest example of rising to the occasion.  And, it was the day that worm turned for the cynical, self-serving and sad Clinton campaign.

    <

    p>Thanks for the red meat.

    • You wait and see—a week before the convention Clinton will go nuclear. You think Bill Clinton isn’t laying the trap as we speak?

      <

      p>Clinton’s play for keeps.

        • They have descended to the level that hey assume everyone is as debased as they are and they spend millions on compiling dossiers on their “enemies”. Just look at the stuff they have dredged up on Obama and believe me there is more.

          <

          p>I saw a vid by some guy in Chicago making some incredibly bizarre allegations re Obama. After everything gets laundered and vetted and if they prove accurate. Not only will Obama not be a candiddate, he may not be a US Senator.
          We’ll see. Perhaps it is all pure BS, but in this point in my life I know that where there is smoke, there is fire. Who knew that Spitzer would go down the drain in 48 hrs and it looks now that patterson may have even more problems.

          <

          p>We are dealing with people—-not saints. Most people don’t lead their lives as if they would be running for president and face nano scrutiny. Which doesn’t mitigate their conduct, only explains it.  

          • I think that most of the negative stuff is B.S. (on both sides).  The question is whether or not  the electorate can learn to look past the crap.  History is not encouraging on this point.  On the other hand, this is proving to be a rather unconventional election…  

    • Speaking out against racism and hatred when it is to shore up your own candidacy, rather than standing up to it when it occurs, is something else.  

      • If Obama was simply trying to shore up his candidacy he would have given a much different, much shorter speech throwing his pastor under the bus.  He didn’t do that and the fact that he didn’t do that says a lot about his character and the kind of president that he would be.

        <

        p>He is running for president and chose the moment to do something hard and unexpected with this speech.  It was one of those rare moments of substance that I think we crave but is all too rare in national campaigns.  

        • particularly because they have had a close relationship for 20 years and particulary since Obama has repeatedly referred to Rev. Wright as his mentor.  In any event, we clearly have different definitions of courage.        

          • Throwing him under the bus WOULD have been the easier, more expedient answer.

            <

            p>Politicians have thrown close friends under the bus who were far more close, with far less reason, than in this case.

        • because he wants to preserve his US Senate seat in the event he does not get the nomination or win the election.
          Same reason he remained sitting in his pew when Wright
          railed against the jews and zionists and all the plantation owners out here in the United States on AmeriKKKa. Isn’t that just swell for a man running for president. No matter how much you try you can’t put a shine on a sneaker.

  9. John Sasso’s comments didn’t carry much weight back in 12/07 and are long past their freshness date.

    <

    p>As for BHO’s poll dip – well we all saw the tighten-up coming, didn’t we?  The important thing is the pledged delegate ratio, which I don’t see as likely to change significantly in HRC’s favor.  BHO’s speech yesterday was masterful and is spreading like wildfire on the net.

    <

    p>Preachergate is now officially over, at least among the sane.  Any further pushing on the Rev. Wright stuff will backfire.  And if this kind of slur by association stuff continues, it will hurt Clinton the worst.  Even if she doesn’t do anything, any continued flogging of the issue will be attributed to her.

    <

    p>While a comfortable Clinton victory in Pennsylvania has looked like a sure thing from day one (forgive me), it still won’t give her much proportional oomph, since she’ll be lucky just to break even in the remaining nine states.

    <

    p>As for the so-called “re-do”s,  Florida has shot itself in the ass and will be lucky to have their delegation seated as observers, and a Michigan primary  (however contorted in execution) will easily tilt to Obama since the biggest turnout would be in urban areas (and when I say urban, btw, I mean “in, relating to, or characteristic of cities” not some racial code b.s.

    • This one is also an Illinois State Senator, an Obama superdelegate and a formal endorser.

      <

      p>Saw videotape of him today, same sort of rhetoric.  And this guy isn’t a spiritual mentor, but a political ally.

      <

      p>IMHO, Obama’s years as a community organizer has left him with a tin ear for how these remarks sound to those outside the cogniscenti of liberation politics.  Sort of like how a Nine Inch Nails roadie is a little hard of hearing.

      <

      p>For instance, today, the New Black Panther Party endorsed Obama on his web site.  When the campaign was asked, reporters were told that the endorsement was taken off the site.  When Mr. Shabazz, head of the Party was asked about that action he shrugged.  Said Obama had told him that was just politics, like hey – we’ll ‘take it down’, wink, wink, but now all the REAL people will know where you stand and we’ll really fool them, huh?

      <

      p>He should be smarter than this.  

    • Fox and the rest know they’ve found a vulnerable spot and they’re going to keep working it.  Just watch how Obama’s Christianity is going to keep on getting a full workover.  This isn’t going to end.  In the end, though the speech was nice, he didn’t answer the real question- what his operative principle of justice and vision of it is.

      <

      p>The SUSA polling numbers say the electibility argument is going back to Clinton.  There’s a lot of putting a brave face on things going on in Camp Obama, but this thing was a brutal hit into their strengths.

      • The latest numbers are before Obama’s speech. I think we will need to wait a couple of weeks for all of this settle down before we really know where the polls stand.

    • Florida shot it itself in the ass, and now that it’s reloaded, it’s taking aim at the Democratic Party.  I’m surprised that so many people don’t care.

      <

      p>Camp Obama seems to forgotten that its top priority should be the White House, not seeing Hillary lose.

      • I just think the leadership in Michigan and Florida should accept responsibility for their screw-up and pony up the cash for real primaries (and that includes keeping MI an open primary).  Hurt feelings can’t suddenly make the earlier, half-assed results valid.

        <

        p>Whoever this situation might favor, the fact is that the whole mess is neither the candidates’ fault nor the DNC’s, but that of the leadership in the two states involved.  They broke it – they bought it.  

        <

        p>MI and FL voters are smart enough to know who to hold accountable.

        • The Democratic leadership in the two states screwed up.  And because they are two swing states, and Michigan is nigh-essential to Democratic hopes (especially since Obama polls so poorly in Ohio), we can’t afford to lose it.

          <

          p>The bought it, we have to bail them out.

          <

          p>And this whole “voters are smart enough” angle — lots of candidates have lost because their campaign was predicated on that very idea…

  10. This news story is not Clinton’s fault.

    <

    p>The story was broke by ABC News.  Who runs politics at ABC News? George Stephanopolous.   Who did George work for? Bill Clinton.

    <

    p>This story has the Clinton machines fingerprints all over it.  They will stop at nothing to get power.  

    • …since Mr. Stephanopoulos started working at ABC he has hardly been a Clinton shill.  If anything it seems he has joined what some see as the anti-Hillary bias in coverage.

      • to say he joined in the “anti-Hillary” bias is ridiculous. he’s been extremely wel balanced as always, unlike CNN and MSNBC who are clearly tilted towards Clinton and Obama respectively.

    • Fox News, they lie and have negative stories about Democrats,  Who talks about politics a Fox?  Dick Morris.  Dick Morris is a former Clinton strategist.  See it all adds up?!?!?

      <

      p>The Week, which Stephanopolous is the anchor is run by Katherine O’Hearn.  ABC News is run by David Westin.  Stephanopoulos doesn’t run ABC News.

      • with the emphasis on “dick,” has been a standard bearer for the anti-Hillary crowd.  He writes an anti-Hillary column nearly every week.  He has also served these “notable” politicians: Sen. Jesse Helms, R-N.C., Republican Minority Leader Trent Lott, R-Miss, Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, R-Tx and former New York City Mayors Ed Koch.  

        <

        p>Everything is NOT as they appear.  Here’s a link to yesterday’s rant, which I am sure you will applaud.

        <

        p> http://www.realclearpolitics.c…

Archives