Hillary Clinton, accept your grim fate.

Wednesday, April 23rd, 2008 @ 12:13 am | Barack Obama, Clintonitis, Election crap, Hillary Clinton

Delegate count from the PA primary:

Clinton: 52
Obama: 46

Total delegates for each so far:

Clinton: 1,556
Obama: 1,694

And it’s not just the delegate count that clearly spells Hillary’s fate. The popular vote tells the exact same story. It is to be expected that regardless of the margin, the Clinton camp will trumpet tonights win of Hillary’s home state as a devastating defeat. The cable news outlets will play along because the continuation of the Democratic Party candidate selection process affords them a few more weeks of lazy horse-race narration. But at what cost?

Mrs. Clinton did not get the big win in Pennsylvania that she needed to challenge the calculus of the Democratic race. It is true that Senator Barack Obama outspent her 2-to-1. But Mrs. Clinton and her advisers should mainly blame themselves, because, as the political operatives say, they went heavily negative and ended up squandering a good part of what was once a 20-point lead.

On the eve of this crucial primary, Mrs. Clinton became the first Democratic candidate to wave the bloody shirt of 9/11. A Clinton television ad — torn right from Karl Rove’s playbook — evoked the 1929 stock market crash, Pearl Harbor, the Cuban missile crisis, the cold war and the 9/11 attacks, complete with video of Osama bin Laden. “If you can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen,” the narrator intoned.

The pattern has become all too familiar. Clinton is the presumed winner in the upcoming caucus/primary because of wide early margins amongst all demographics. The Obama campaign moves in, organizes, and the gap rapidly narrows leading to either a win or a close second despite the Clinton campaigns repeated willingness to immediately go negative. In contest after contest, Clinton has blown huge margins yet we’re supposed to believe that come November she will not repeat the same performance when facing John McCain? And after putting up with months of the type of abuse from his Democratic rival (the nature of which my eight-year-old niece would be ashamed of) we’re supposed to believe that a knock-kneed Obama, when facing a Republican slime-machine that the Clinton campaign has shown no hesitation in aping, will be too overcome by Rovian shock-and-awe to mount an effective campaign? We already know how the Republican Party is going to attack Obama because we’ve seen it from the Clinton campaign. Obama’s performance in handling Clinton’s slash-and-burn tactics should be more than enough evidence that he’s got what it takes to face a light-weight like John McCain head-on.

I do not want to see Hillary Clinton on television after the November elections explaining that regardless of the fact that she lost the delegate count and the popular vote she is still the best candidate (just like she is doing right now). I would much rather place my bets on a battle-hardened Obama candidacy with a track-record of effective campaigning and driven by a fierce work-ethic.

-mg

32 Responses to “Hillary Clinton, accept your grim fate.”

  1. Dana Says:

    According to WPVI TV this morning, the Pennsylvania delegate count was 66 for Mrs Clinton and 57 for Mr Obama, a net gain of 9 for Mrs Clinton, with committed delegates at 1705 for Mr Obama and 1595 for Mrs Clinton.

  2. Dana Says:

    Anecdotally — since I haven’t compiled all of the results yet — Mrs Clinton cleaned up amongst us bitter white rural rednecks; she carried my home county 76% to 24%.

    I know that y’all don’t like to hear this, but what I told you months ago is coming true: this was a racially based result, with Mr Obama carrying blacks by huge margins, and Mrs Clinton carrying the white vote.

  3. Sharon Says:

    “Battle-hardened”? Obama evades hard questions. Maybe that’s your idea of “battle-hardened.”

  4. mike g Says:

    Dana> I posted those numbers before I went to bed so they were subject to change.

    Sharon> Shia? Sunni? Huh? Wake me up when you have anything interesting or original to add to the conversation.

  5. Nate W Says:

    Is this where Sharon starts calling people stupid?

  6. Thomas Tallis Says:

    when and where do we get to LOL about Ron Paul getting 16% of the Republican votes in PA…and Mike Huckabee getting 11%

  7. Thomas Tallis Says:

    oh did I mention RON PAUL

  8. Phil from the Phuture Says:

    “I know that y’all don’t like to hear this, but what I told you months ago is coming true: this was a racially based result, with Mr Obama carrying blacks by huge margins, and Mrs Clinton carrying the white vote.”

    So there are no other demographic discrepencies of note? Obama carries young voters by large margins. Do they not count? Obama carries voters with personal incomes over $150K. Does that not matter in your estimations? How about the fact that Clinton took the Western end of PA while Obama dominated in the East? A keen statistician you are not, Dana.

  9. Dana Says:

    Phil: Mr Obama did not dominate the east; he won seven out of 67 counties, here is the map.

    And here are the stats:

    White men: Clinton 53%, Obama 46%
    White women: Clinton 64%, Obama 36%
    Black men: Clinton 4%, Obama 96%
    Black women: Clinton 11%, Obama 89%

    Whites: Clinton 60%, Obama 40%
    Blacks: Clinton 8%, Obama 92%

    Male: Clinton 46&, Obama 53%
    Female: Clinton 56%, Obama 44%

    Protestant Christian: Clinton 58%, Obama 43%
    Catholic: Clinton 70%, Obama 30%
    Jewish: Clinton 54%, Obama 46%
    Other: N/A
    None: Clinton 37%, Obama 63%

    And, considering “Operation KAOS,”
    Democrats: Clinton 54%, Obama 46%
    Ind/GOP: Clinton 46%, Obama 53%

    Mr Obama carries voters who earn more than $150,000? Well, those voters usually vote Republican, and incomes over $150,000 are in the top five percent of earners in the US, which makes the Democrats in that category a pretty small part of the electorate.

    Do young voters not count? Maybe not, actually; they are the ones least likely to actually vote!

    Hillary Clinton’s current meme is that Mr Obama cannot win in November, while she can. She can’t say why she believes this, because it’s impolitic to say so, but she believes that he cannot win because he is a Negro. Quite frankly, I think that she’s probably right.

  10. Thomas Tallis Says:

    haha Phil now that we have internet, everyone’s as expert at statistics – you just pick you the ones you like, ignore the ones you don’t, et voila, you have presented an airtight case with the magic of numbers! works for Dana anyhow

  11. Phil from the Phuture Says:

    Nobody is disputing that Obama does well amongst that segment of the population (African Americans). My issue was with your cherry-picking that particular demographic feature to make a point. When compared with all the other factors involved it only makes up a small portion of the whole.

  12. sharon Says:

    Yes, actually parsing your prose does tend to get under your skin, eh, Mike? Obama’s behavior over the last month makes him look far less “battle-hardened” and more petulant and petty. He dislikes reporters asking him questions on the stump. He dodges questions he dislikes with, “I already answered that” when he clearly did not. And, after his poor performance last Wednesday night, he’s decided he doesn’t like debating. Let’s face it; Obama never did well in any of the debates over the last year. He does much better with his prepared texts but HopeNChange go out the window with any sort of questioning. But, hey, I like him as your candidate. I’ll admit I was wrong about Obama; I thought he would be tougher to beat.

    As for the statistics, Obama has a near stranglehold on African-Americans (unsurprisingly) and a majority of those under 40. But among people who typically vote in the general election, his numbers are weak and squishy.

  13. Independent Says:

    OBAMA dislikes reporters asking him questions? What?

    Oh, but the Clintons are GREAT with that, aren’t they!?!?

    Bill pointing his finger in the chest of a reporter Monday who read a quote BILL HIMSELF gave, verbatim, and Bill totally denied it, accusing the reporter of “playing games.”

    Chelsea telling a reporter that her fathers action(s) in the White House were nobodys business?

    But yes, Obama is terrible with questions, isn’t he?

  14. mike g Says:

    Sharon, we’re all familiar with your subjective views on the matter. If you want to characterize his behavior as not “battle-hardened” you’re more than welcome to do so. I happen to disagree because I think you’re trying to make hay out of a few cherry-picked events and associations nobody really gives a shit about. Or are we supposed to all pretend that rural Pennsylvanians studiously read Hitchens and care about some arcane, Baader Meinhof wannabe like Bill Ayers? If you were smart you’d shut your fat trap and save some of this phony outrage until before November when it might actually have an impact.

    And why would you get under my skin? You’re just some boring broad with bad manners and a lot of time on her hands. It’s letters on a page, baby. Get over yourself.

  15. SS Says:

    Obama dodges questions? He actually sat down with several reporters for over 90 minutes answering all of their questions. Who else has ever done that?

    http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-0316edit1mar16,0,2616801.story

  16. jeromy Says:

    Eh, with Sharon the facts don’t matter so much. She tries to think of what she needs to say to get what she wants, then says it.

  17. Dana Says:

    Independent: No one is saying that the Clintons are great, just because people criticze Mr Obama. Sharon and I will both vote for the best candidate in November, John McCain.

    I’ve been saying for months — at least since Mr Obama started to separate himself from the other non-Clinton candidates — that he would be easier for the Republicans to defeat in November. Had Mrs Clinton won the nomination in the coronation-style she anticipated, I think she’d have been a very tough candidate in November, but this whole dragged out affair has led black voters to believe that Mr Obama has won the nomination fair and square, and if the superdelegates now give it to Mrs Clinton, black voters may well just stay home in November.

    Y’all have the interesting choice between a candidate who may cause black voters to stay home — thus losing the election for the Democrats — and a candidate who had a meteoric rise, but seems to have peaked and started to slide once he actually found himself in a fight. For an anticipated Democratic nominee who couldn’t lose, you may be facing a choice of two who cannot win. 🙂

  18. Dana Says:

    SS asked:

    Obama dodges questions? He actually sat down with several reporters for over 90 minutes answering all of their questions. Who else has ever done that?

    All the candidates have done that, the candidates still standing, and the ones who have fallen by the wayside. Every candidate, both Repubican and Democrat, has accepted the challenge of debates, on as many occasions as they could.

  19. SS Says:

    I highly doubt that. People are so pissed with Bush, etc. I can’t imagine people staying home.

  20. jeromy Says:

    “…but this whole dragged out affair has led black voters to believe that Mr Obama has won the nomination fair and square,”

    Um, I thought most people believed that…

    Anyway, I think Dana is trying to talk until he makes happen what he wants to come true. This is the GOP of today, the Red Ruby Slippers Party. Obama is still leading McCain in most polls, and this is with some Clinton partisans still being pissy.

    If Republicans really thought Obama was the easy meat, Rush Limbaugh wouldn’t be sending dittoheads out to vote for Hillary. Why hasn’t the Republican attack machine jumped on Hillary, instead joining arms with her to attack Obama?

    Please, Dana. When you come here, try, try, try, however hard it may be, to just talk instead of trying to play poker.

  21. Sharon Says:

    Well, obviously all the people voting for Hillary Clinton don’t believe Obama’s won. And there’s actual evidence that she’s ahead in the popular vote. Why doesn’t Barack Obama just throw in the towel with that? After all, that’s one of his arguments for Hillary stepping aside.

    And ever since Obama’s connections with bigot Jeremiah Wright have been discussed, Obama’s been trying to hide from the press. “I answered 8 questions!” he said. 8 questions? Please! Obama doesn’t handle reporters questions well, which is why he likes to direct how and when he talks to the press. It’s why he likes speeches, not press conferences. And his abyssmal performance in the last Democrat debate is why he is afraid to have another one with Hillary.

    I disagreed with Dana and thought Obama would be a more formidable candidate than Hillary, but it turns out that I was wrong. The reason Republicans have attacked Obama recently is the same reason they attacked Hillary last fall: you always go after the frontrunner. I know you’ll decry actually campaigning to win (until your candidate does the same), but it’s no different from the attacks both Clinton and Obama have made on Republicans already. So, continue the ad hominems on anyone who points out why Obama can’t and won’t win. It doesn’t change the fact that you’ve managed to come up with two candidates who can’t cobble together enough constituencies to win in the general election.

  22. Independent Says:

    So, Dana, is the best candidate McCain simply because he’s a Republican?

    Think hard before you say anything but yes.

    I have a feeling that, should an episode of South Park come true and a turd sandwich won the GOP nomination, Dana and Sharon would still say the turd sandwich was the best candidate.

  23. Thomas Tallis Says:

    Sharon I’m curious: why weren’t you nearly as interested in John McCain’s relations with the bigot John Hagee?

  24. Dana Says:

    Independent asked:

    So, Dana, is the best candidate McCain simply because he’s a Republican?

    Republicans certainly win all ties as far as I’m concerned, but McCain does better than a tie. Hillary Clinton has attempted to make an issue of experience — and on that, John McCain leaves both Democrats in the dust. He has experience in the military and in combat, something neither of them have. He has more experience in the Congress than both Democrats put together.

    On the issues, he’s the clear winner as far as I am concerned; he is pro-life, while they are both pro-abortion. He supports continuation of the tax cuts; both of the Democrats, despite what they say — Mrs Clinton is just as serious about a middle-class tax cut as was her husband in 1992 — already voted to increase the 25, 28, 31 and 35% brackets. Both of the Democrats have promised huge new social spending programs.

    And as for personal trust, Mr McCain is honorable and trustworthy, Mr Obama is just plainly unknown on that, and Mrs Clinton is completely untrustworthy.

    I have a feeling that, should an episode of South Park come true and a turd sandwich won the GOP nomination, Dana and Sharon would still say the turd sandwich was the best candidate.

    Compared to Hillary Clinton, a turd sandwich — with urine dressing! — would be the better candidate! Compared to Mr Obama, well, I’d imagine that both would leave a bad taste in your mouth. 🙂

  25. jeromy Says:

    Evidence Hillary is winning the popular vote, Sharon? Care to point it out? Last I heard Obama was ahead by a half million or so.

    Because in the reality-based community, Obama is ahead in the popular vote, in number of states won, and, oh, yeah, delegates. So yes, while Hillary Clinton people may think that the superdelegates should just hand the nomination to her, it’s hardly black people who would see Obama as winning by fair standards.

    But we’ll excuse Dana’s little gaffe for now!

    And, Dana, as for Obama being “plainly unknown” for being honorable and trustworthy…heh. Yeah, all we have is the testimony of every single person who’s ever known or worked with him throughout school and 20 years of public life! Maybe Cass Sunstein can fill you in, Dana:

    http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-oped0314obamamar14,0,7185898.story

    I mean, that’s just silly. You’re playing poker again, man.

    And McCain, not so much on the honorable and trustworthy. Image aside, the man was neck-deep in the Keating scandal, cheated on his first wife, and has backed down on torture. Not to mention he’s awash in lobbyists and has told some blatantly verifiable lies trying to defend himself.

    But you do have the media narrative on your side, Mr. Pico, which is why you’ll continue hyping it. Because you do so rarely speak without trying some form of cheap manipulation.

  26. Nate W Says:

    TT> Because Hagee is a white Republican.

  27. Independent Says:

    Someone, make them stop. They’re making my head hurt.

  28. matt Says:

    I know this is sad but, do you think Hillary realizes how many young dems will stay home in November if she gets the nomination. There a lot of young liberals to be lost with this nomination. I personally hope to God she falls to the side sooner then later.

  29. Dana Says:

    Jeromy asked:

    Evidence Hillary is winning the popular vote, Sharon? Care to point it out? Last I heard Obama was ahead by a half million or so.

    From Sharon’s site, the link can be found to this site, a Clinton site to be sure, but one with an MSNBC graphic image indicating that, if Florida and Michigan are included, Mrs Clinton has the lead in the popular vote, by 133,944 total votes.

  30. mike Says:

    Does it need to be repeated that Obama wasn’t on the ballot in Michigan?

  31. Dana Says:

    Does it matter? Mrs Clinton chose to stay on the ballot, and thus she won more votes, period.

  32. mike Says:

    It was understood at the time that the votes wouldn’t count. You don’t think that would make a difference in the outcomes in either state had voters understood otherwise?