The end of the asterisks

For the past couple of weeks, Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign has been relying on what I call the “asterisk strategy.” Every Clinton victory is a sign of strength and long-term success, but every Obama victory doesn’t really count because it comes with an asterisk.

Obama won Washington? That doesn’t count; it’s a caucus state.

Obama won Nebraska? That doesn’t count, because he spent more money there.

Obama won South Carolina and Louisiana? Those don’t count, because the states’ large African-American populations give him a built-in advantage.

Obama won Illinois? That doesn’t count; it’s his home state.

Obama won Connecticut? That doesn’t count; he fared less well among traditional Democratic constituencies.

Clinton was making the case for asterisks as recently as Monday, speaking to a poli-sci class at the University of Virginia, and dismissing the value of caucuses. “If you show up at a caucus, you’re highly motivated and often times very much [fixated] on one issue or a certain ideological position.” According to one report, “Clinton also bragged Monday that her support among voters earning less than $50,000 a year better equipped her to wage economic warfare against John McCain.”

Obviously, yesterday’s results in Virginia, Maryland, and the District of Columbia are harder to spin, because the asterisks don’t apply.

What I can’t quite wrap my head around is why Clinton hasn’t done more to contest these contests. Her criticism of caucuses in general seems more than fair — indeed, I largely agree with all of her concerns — but this is the process through which Dems are going to pick a nominee. When one candidate wins a caucus state and picks up more delegates for the convention, it doesn’t much matter when the candidate who came in second says, “But I don’t like caucuses.” The preference is irrelevant.

I get the impression that the Clinton campaign, after Super Tuesday, came up with a strategy: batten down the hatches, wait for March 4, and hope the storm that blows over doesn’t do too much damage. It’s an approach that seems more than a little flawed.

Indeed, we’re seeing the consequences of it now. Obama has won eight contests over the course of four days and has taken a delegate lead that may ultimately prove to be insurmountable. In the meantime, Clinton’s campaign manager has left, her deputy campaign manager has left, and two staffers from the campaign’s online team have left. Even die-hard supporters are starting to feel antsy.

It’s not too late — a lot can happen between now and March 4 — but I think we’re going to see a lot more quotes like this one in the coming days: “As one Democratic superdelegate, who has endorsed her, put it fatalistically, ‘I don’t see any strategy, any way that she can pull it out.'”

We heard some similar pronouncements when Obama had a double-digit lead a few days before the New Hampshire primary. This is clearly worse.

What I can’t quite wrap my head around is why Clinton hasn’t done more to contest these contests.

It looks pretty clear to me. Patty Solis Doyle’s campaign strategy was based on putting Obama away by Super Tuesday. To that end the campaign literally “went for broke,” including the $5 Million loan.

As a result, they didn’t have a serious organization in the smaller post-Super Tuesday states, and since then, they simply haven’t had the money (or time) to build them.

  • She can’t contest; she’s using all her money to pay Mark Penn. I don’t understand why he hasn’t been fired, when it’s clear he’s an utter failure. And as much as I’d rather Obama win, it actually of bothers me to watch her get screwed by such a complete and obvious huckster.

    I don’t really know enough to know if the people being pushed out aren’t doing their job right, but it seems pretty obvious that for the money he’s getting, Penn ought to be helping her win. An eight state blowout it a reason to fire your media consultant, especially when he spends the night before you lose three states lecturing about his shitty book.

  • She can’t contest; she’s using all her money to pay Mark Penn. I don’t understand why he hasn’t been fired, when it’s clear he’s an utter failure.

    Agreed.

    Attention Democratic Politicians — If you want to signal to the base that you’re a doomed candidate and that we should ignore you from the start, be sure to hire Mark Penn and/or Bob Shrum.

  • Technically, Obama has won 9 of 9 contests if you consider the Virgin Islands a contest, to which CNN does not.

  • Watching Obama and Hillary’s race this year brings to mind what it was like watching Buster Douglas fight Mike Tyson in Tokyo in 1990. As the fight unfolded, even as Douglas was beating Tyson handily, my mind (and the minds of the announcers) found it difficult to embrace a reality that differed so dramatically from what conventional wisdom expected. Looking back on the fight afterwards, one wonders how everyone seemed to not be able to see what was happening right before their eyes.

    Hillary’s campaign is in far worse shape than we are all allowing ourselves to acknowledge.

  • JC (1) “Patty Solis Doyle’s campaign strategy was based on putting Obama away by Super Tuesday.”

    True but imagine if Clinton had done worse than she did on Super Tuesday. Wouldn’t we be talking about a tornado of momentum now.

    As for the caucus argument, someone please tell me how I’m wrong here. College students are a huge part of the Obama constituency. College students either a) go have to go home to vote in caucuses, or b) register and vote on/near campus. If “b”, they dilute their effect since a 9-1 vote results in the same number of delegates as a 9000-1000. Since the delegates available are based on 2004 caucuses (sometimes 2006 as well), college campuses districts don’t have that many delegates, since as some have pointed out, historically young people don’t vote. Conclusion: Caucus rules don’t benefit Obama.

  • I agree with JC in #1. Clinton Plan A failed, and there was nothing left for Plan B.

    They’re done unless Obama has a huge skeleton in his closet.

  • Well ES

    If SC doesn’t count because there are too many black people, than according to Mark Penn the Virgin Islands don’t actually exist.

  • The mismanagement of Hillary’s campaign is really stunning. Read these:

    http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200802u/patti-solis-doyle

    http://www.tnr.com/talkback.html?id=75e41edb-784d-4f9a-ba6e-08cab93d09ae

    Where else have we seen this kind of arrogance, insulation, idea-control, loyalty-obsession, and rigidity? Oh yeah, the Bush administration.

    Patti Solis Doyle is Hillary’s Donald Rumsfeld. Hillary was too damn stubborn, arrogant, and stupid to get rid of her until she had already done 95% of the damage she could ever do.

    I am so glad it is looking less and less likely Hillary will win the nomination. I don’t think I could stand her as president if this is how she would run the executive branch. And I’m almost 100% behind her on the issues for God’s sake.

  • I still think that a lot of her “strategy” involved name recoginition and a sense that she would be given the nomination because she somehow deserved it. With that mindset who needs commericals, who need poll workers on election day, etc.

  • Hillary’s staff people are abandoning her just as Republicans are abandoning Congress. Nice. Maybe we’re heading somewhere definitive. At last.

  • Danp: that’s a lot of speculation, though. A rather startling number of college students live close to their homes, and often those who don’t have fully set up a life near their college. Also, young people aren’t the only ones voting for Obama. A more logical conclusion might be: Caucus rules benefit Obama in this one regard slightly less than Hillary’s campaign likes to spin.

  • All Clinton has to do is to hang on and the super-delegates will put her over the top, especially when FL and MI are counted (an analysis by MSNBC shows Obama slightly ahead in delegates even if those states are counted assuming a 50-50 split of big states.) Right now all she has to do is to win Ohio and Texas and she can claim victory to those deciders.

    I don’t think that the party insiders want Obama any more than they wanted Bill Clinton (or the Republicans want McCain), it ruins an otherwise perfect record of choosing losers. And they will have the final say. The last time they did this they chose Walter Mondale.

    How many of you have heard otherwise right of center friends praise Obama and say “no way” for Clinton?

  • CB, you made a passing comparison the other day between Hillary’s campaign strategy and Giuliani’s Florida “firewall” strategy. And you took some heat for it. But your comments above make that comparison seem even more apt.

    Looking back, it seems like Hillary’s campaign got to this point through overconfidence. The only caucuses that she really competed in were the ones in Iowa. No matter – her name recognition and front-runner poll numbers would carry the day in the primary states, and it would all be over by Super Tuesday. With the compression of so many primaries into the first 100 days of 2008, there wouldn’t be time for a dark horse to emerge from the pack of also-rans. So they thought they would allow Obama and the others to pick up a few crumbs in the other little caucus states, where they could only gain a few delegates at worst. But Obama gained momentum. (Yes, I believe in momentum.)

    So Hillary’s campaign spent heavily in the runup to Super Tuesday, depleting their funds. When Super Tuesday was played to a draw, the campaign came to the shocking realization of what a hole they had dug for themselves. Now, out of necessity, they are trying desperately to hold onto Texas and Ohio, but it may be too late. Obama is the front-runner now, and there is a huge enthusiasm gap between many of Hillary’s voters (for name recognition and little else) and Obama voters who have been impressed enough by what they have seen and heard to make a conscious decision to support him.

    Wisconsin and Hawaii will likely make it ten in a row for Obama. Let’s watch for movement in the Texas and Ohio polls between now and their primaries.

  • How many of you have heard otherwise right of center friends praise Obama and say “no way” for Clinton?

    I’ve heard that plenty. Lifelong Republican friends and family members who’d cross over to vote for Obama (especially if McCain is the nominee) but would reverse course if it’s Hillary.

    I can’t understand why some people so deeply and viscerally hate Hillary — remain unmoved or skeptical, sure, but hate? — but it’s certainly out there. And given the close overlap between the two’s messages, it seems the messenger really might make the difference here.

  • Are we jumping to conclusions in seeing these departing campaign staffers as rats deserting a sinking ship? They may have been fired, and the campaign can’t afford to just sideline (with pay) the (now) dead wood for optics sake.

  • …especially when FL and MI are counted… -mikeyes

    Florida and Michigan will not be counted as long as the race is competitive. Rules is rules and breaking them has consequences.

    There is no way to consider either contest fair to the candidates and there is no way to re-run them.

    Persisting in this belief smacks of desperation.


  • mikeyes said:
    Right now all she has to do is to win Ohio and Texas and she can claim victory to those deciders.

    That’s a pretty big all, actually. And the more Obama wins between now and March 4th, the bigger that all gets. The more Obama looks like a “winner” the better his chances in Ohio, at least (can’t speak for Texas). If he wins one or the other on the 4th, after sweeping through the February contests, Clinton can probably pack it in. Enough super-delegates will abandon her to make sure Michigan and Florida “don’t count” enough even if she could get them seated.

    How many of you have heard otherwise right of center friends praise Obama and say “no way” for Clinton?

    Exactly never. The right of center friends I have are either perfectly comfortable voting for either of them in the general, or they’re planning on writing in Ron Paul in protest. Of course, my right-of-center friends are smart enough to actually go online to see what their positions look like, so they’re pretty comfortable that neither of them is going to be too extreme for their tastes. I don’t hang out with any rabid Clinton-haters, so there’s that.

    And my Republican family members have rallied around McCain, as I knew they would eventually. Despite the fact that in 2000 a vote for McCain was a vote for Satan to eat a puppy or something. So I don’t expect any of them to be swayed by Obama’s fancy speeches.

  • How many of you have heard otherwise right of center friends praise Obama and say “no way” for Clinton? -mikeyes

    Well, anecdotes do not data make, but you asked, so I’ll let you know my in-laws, self-identified Republicans trending towards the religious side (I had an hour long conversation with my mother-in-law recently trying to explain why an established religion is a bad thing), have read Obama’s books and would vote for him. They live in Indiana, a solid red state, but the Democrats have been making inroads. I hold no illusions that a Democrat would win the electoral votes there, but it would be nice to seem them be competitive.

    But like I said, anecdotes should not be used to draw conclusions.

    I noticed you didn’t actually make a comment about the article ‘The End of Asterisks’ in your comment. How do you feel about Clinton’s firewall strategy and her campaigns insistence that Obama’s wins in several instances don’t count? How do you imagine that makes the voters and caucus goers in those states feel?

    It certainly seems that Obama is more in tune with Dean’s 50 State Strategy that Clinton. Correct me if I’m wrong, but didn’t most of the establishment fight Dean on that until the victories in 2006?

  • Let me preface my comments by first admitting that I’m such a counter cultural rebel that I don’t trust Clinton at all and have grave reservations about Obama. I’m a supporter of neither one.

    Having said that, I think the reason for what is happening in the primaries and caucuses is probably very simple.

    Most of the electorate is not aware of the inner workings of the various campaigns, their strategies, or the dynamics of their staff. Most voters don’t know the demographics that support the various candidates. Nor do they look at past primary results to help them decide how they will vote.

    Most people, I believe, base their choices on some sort of emotional basis and then find reasons to defend that choice. A gross broad-brush generalization I know, but one that I believe contains some truth.

    Watching the two candidates, it just seems apparent to me that Obama comes across as so much more attractive than Clinton on so many more levels.

    I think their experience and their voting records, and their positions on issues, etc. are important to some extent to most people, but in the end I think it really comes down to some sort of gut-check emotional quotient.

    Clinton’s big disadvantage here is the length of the campaign. The longer it goes, the more exposure the candidates are given to the electorate, the less popular she becomes.

    It’s not an issue of one candidate being better or more moral, or evil versus good, more experienced, or gender or race, or anything like that. Obama just comes across better than Clinton and people trust their inner feelings enough to make that important.

    In the end, those old political standbys, money and influence, may prevail and dictate the direction the Democratic Party takes (which could be either candidate), but right now it seems we are witnessing a “will of the people” movement that seems to perplex the pundits, journalists, and other talking heads – probably because they are not accustomed to dealing with “the people.”

  • Well, the good ship Hillary isn’t sunk yet—but seeing critical members of the staff go this late in the contest suggests that the lifeboats have been untarped—and the davits are swinging outboard.

    “Never mind that the deck is crooked. We’re just having a little lifeboat drill—‘kay?”

  • A friend from NJ told me last night that she won there as the party was behind her. If this was the same in the other big states it was probably the basis of her strategy and source of arrogance and inevitability. But Virginia wasn’t even close to being close and I can start to see that even some of here most ardent supporters are starting to sense that she has blown this so she is now not only fighting Obama but within her own ranks. It doesn’t bode well for her campaigning right now and last night in her speach it really showed. But she is a fighter, but I don’t know if she knows how to give up so I suspect this might get real ugly.

  • Obama is starting to seem like a real phenomenon. I’d had this sense of him after Iowa, though it was dimmed a bit by the NH results. Now it seems to be back full force. And with the country in the toilet in so many ways after years of Bush mismanagement, we may really need a phenomenon.

    Hillary’s an impressive technocrat (albeit with a legion of psychotic rightwing haters attached). Given a presidential win and a few months, Obama will likely build his own rightie hate club every bit as spittle-flecked and mouth-foaming as Hillary’s. Hillary’s biggest sin was beating the bastards, and that’s why they hate her.

    We shouldn’t really worry about who the right hates. They hated FDR too, and for many of the same reasons they hate Hillary and that they’re going to hate Obama.

  • All the following pastes are cut from this site:
    http://www.hillaryis44.org/?p=491#comments

    The new asterisk: These were open primaries.
    And republicans voted in droves for Barack because he is easier to beat:

    Wow, the exit polls prove it: Republicans are crossing over and voting for Obama, knowing he’s the weaker nominee. It’s a shame that the DNC and Howard Dean didn’t plan very well for these scenarios, but that’s water under the bridge at this point.

    outrageous. despicable. these democratic primaries make me sick, the way they let republicans freely walk in and out.

    This election really makes the case for election reform. I don’t want republicans tampering with my election. If they want to cross over in the GE fine, but not the primary.

    And the new asterisk is because of corruption.

    My point?
    Michelle Obama in her “moving the bar speech” gets it exactly right:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jwkHFfO7hG8
    They are going to keep moving the bar on him. Every step of the way…
    And that’s okay. Because it keeps all of our eyes, fixated on the prize.

  • I’m still waiting to hear why Delaware was an asterisk.

    Other than the fact that we’re really puny :/

  • Tamalak,

    Wayne Campbell: Or, imagine, being able to be magically whisked away to… Delaware.
    [pauses]
    Wayne Campbell: Hi. I’m in Delaware.

    That’s why.

  • It certainly seems that Obama is more in tune with Dean’s 50 State Strategy that Clinton. Correct me if I’m wrong, but didn’t most of the establishment fight Dean on that until the victories in 2006?

    Clinton loyalists Carville and Begala tried to get Dean fired after the victories of 2006, claiming Dems would have won more seats if Dean had given more money to candidates (i.e. consultants like Carville and Begala) instead of wasting it building up infrastructure for the future. I’m not sure whether either Clinton agreed with that criticism though.

  • I don’t know why, but I’ve been fascinated with the unscientific poll at CNN.com.

    Who do you like best for president?
    John McCain 22% 123414
    Mike Huckabee 10% 59801
    Hillary Clinton 23% 128879
    Barack Obama 45% 260262
    Total Votes: 572356

    With well over a half-million votes, Obama has a landslide lead in a four-way free-for-all. Meaningless, probably. But in the far reaches of my heart I think: maybe it’s not just the young Internet-savvy people or the “liberal” CNN audience voting. Maybe Obama is tapping a nerve, the one that hasn’t been stimulated in the last seven-plus years, the one that aches to be moved by a real leader.

    I keep coming back to this: At this moment in history the presidency cannot and should not be based on “experience” or “policy”. We need a leader. Not to change policies, but to change attitudes. Not to think about the future, but to make everyone else think about the future. We’ve seen what chaos 8 years of having a “leader” who honestly believes the Rapture will happen in his lifetime can create. We need someone who is able to see beyond his or her own lifetime, not in terms of a personal legacy, but as society’s destiny. I don’t get this feeling from anyone else. Not even close.

  • @Shalimar,

    The fact that most of the DLC’s handpicked candidates in vulnerable Repub districts LOST kinda showed that Carville and Begala were full of shit.

  • The more the media and blogs portray Obama’s nomination as inevitable, the more of a bandwagon effect there is. People are not leaving Clinton. They are going along with the person everyone tells them will be a winner. When that was Clinton, the followers supported Clinton. Now it is temporarily Obama. After Texas, Ohio and Pennsylvania vote, it may be Clinton again.

    I will never vote for Obama. If Clinton is not nominated, I will vote for Ralph Nader or perhaps just not vote. I am disgusted by the abandonment of critical analysis on the blogs in favor of support for a man who is not held to the same standard that Clinton is. I don’t like having Obama shoved down my throat by enthusiastic supporters who think that winning blacks and talking hope overcomes support for Lieberman, abandonment of gays, espousing Republican talking points about social security, and unworkable health care reform plans. This man isn’t wonderful — he is a cautious, relatively conservative Chicago politician with a weak record in the Senate and good speaking skills. That’s all. The rest is hype.

  • Right now Obama clearly has mementum, but that does not guaranty anything. Clinton’s strategy could succeed. Obama has a lot of work to do to win either Ohio or Texas (I think Ohio is more likely).

    If Clinton wins both, then this is still a horserace. If Obama prevails in both…or even splits them, then he will have won. The superdeligates will move to his side in order to rally the party and prepare for the general election.

    Now, as to the topic of this thread, the asterisks were always a rediculous arument. A win is a win is a win. Claiming otherwise is just spin. I think even many ardent Clinton supporters are beginning to see through the fog of asterisks.

  • The period between now and March 4 will be a test of Hillary’s leadership skills and crisis management. Will she be diplomatic, creative, resourceful? Will she get rid of advisors that are dead weight and ineffective or will we hear who’s been doing a “heck of a job Brownie?”

    This is Hillary’s gut check and we will see how she will respond if it were our butts on the line and she were president. She’ll either rise up to the occasion or not. A lot of her public esteem will be shaped in the next several weeks and we’ll either like what we see or a very vocal crowd will be screaming “I told you so.”

  • Mary (#33)

    I can repect your obviously heartfelt opinion about Barack Obama, though I do not agree with your characterization that he is cautious or week. But more importantly you should reconsider you choice to not vote for Barack if he earns the nomination for one simple reason: the Supreme Court. To cast a vote that might cause the Rupublicans to win will effect decades of rulings.

    This is why I WILL vote for Hillary Clinton is she earns the nomination. The stakes are too high to not rally around the eventual nominee.

  • The way Mary describes Obama, it’s hard to imagine any Democrat voting for him. How on Earth did he managed to fool so damned many of us, I wonder.

    I will never vote for Obama. If Clinton is not nominated, I will vote for Ralph Nader or perhaps just not vote. -Mary

    Vote however you want, but isn’t this the same type of concern trolling, vengeful fearmongering drivel that came from some of the ‘Obama supporters’ that drove a lot of the more level headed Clinton supporters to stop commenting?

    I guess now that Obama is being considered the front runner, the trolls have a new target but the same old material. Yawn.

  • SURRENDER DOROTHY: If HRC has the cash, instead of wasting it in Texas and Ohio, she should payoff campaign staff, and pay herself back the $5 million loan, then concede the race, and head back to the Senate? Because (no more asterisk) it looks to be over. Obama has tapped into something that she [and McCain] can not HOPE to match. And landslide losses in Texas & Ohio would only add exclamation points.

    It’s been a long campaign – Time to move on to post-Reaganomic America, with the ultra-rich inside bubbles, and many outside in troubles. We’ll get higher wages & prices…then even higher wages & prices…then higher taxes; Save us Democrats? Yea, right! On the plus side, looking at past results, and potential future outcomes, there still seems to be an inherent ‘de Tocquevilleian’ wisdom at work in American politics.

  • Right now all she has to do is to win Ohio and Texas and she can claim victory to those deciders. — mikeyes
    That’s the amazing thing, isn’t it? If she wins Texas, it’s a victory for her. If Obama wins Texas, well it’s a southern state that we won’t win in November, therefore it doesn’t count.

    Either Clinton is unwilling or unable to compete in all these states, and neither is good for her.

  • On February 13th, 2008 at 10:54 am, chrenson said

    Chris, I like your ideas about Obama and the aura around him. I think he is what our once-great country needs for the the future. Though, of course, if Hillary is nominated, I will vote for her…

  • Mary: If we end up with a republican in the White House this year, democrats like you will be largely responsible. I’ve seen people like you in both the Clinton and Obama camps. “If my candidate doesn’t get the nomination, I won’t vote this year!” In every case, that blinkered tribalism is always the result of being blinded by propaganda.

    Let’s get serious for a change, shall we? BOTH Clinton and Obama are intelligent, savvy, articulate, fairly liberal, and have an impressive record of accomplishment. Either of them would be head, shoulders, and waist above anything the GOP has to offer, particularly John “Warmonger” McCain. I would have preferred someone more liberal than either, but for all that, they’re both excellent choices.

    This time, let’s actually try to beat the extremist right-wingers rather than give them our country on a silver platter, ok?

  • OPEN YOUR EYES: If HRC still has the cash, she should payoff campaign staff and pay herself back the loan, then concede the race because the media gave Obama a free-ride and he caught fire. So why reward them now by buying more air time? Wouldn’t the campaign be played for suckers? Obama’s tapped into something that, short of wageing an ugly political war, no one can match. Additional definitive losses only adds exclamation points… If HRC plays-it-smart, she shows up in Denver looking like a winner. Otherwise, the ‘Clinton’ brand has a long way to tumble if it tripped off the (political) mountain top.

  • If Hillary doesn’t like the nomination process so much, why run for president? I mean she knew that caucuses are a part of nomination process and must have had some sort of strategy to win them, right? And when she won the Nevada caucus it did count. Of course, it’s normal for politicians to spin but this is getting ridiculous.

  • If only Obama could play guitar like Hendrix. Lay back and groove eh? Hell of a score card you keep Steve. Never fails to light up with each asterisk. How much will really get changed in the next 4 yrs? That is if we survive the next year with our democracy still in place.

  • bjbotts [44] “How much will really get changed in the next 4 yrs? That is if we survive the next year with our democracy still in place.

    I remember a January seven years ago, when I said out loud, “So we’ve got four years of another Bush. What’s the worst that can happen?” I could not have imagined how incredibly the world would change in the ensuing years, mostly at the hands of a megalomaniacal despot with apocalyptic visions [by whom I mean George W Bush!].

    Meanwhile, in six short years, Gov. Mark Warner turned Virginia from a bankrupt, cut-rate commonwealth [thanks to Jim Gilmore and his tax cuts] into a viable, profitable state again.

    Change can happen, man. I’m not going to go all Peter Pan on you and say “you have to believe!” But for the first time in years, I’m thinking the dimming, sputtering TInkerbell we call America, just might have enough magic dust to get us off the ground again.

    Jesus Christ! Did I just type that?

  • Phoebes [40] “Though, of course, if Hillary is nominated, I will vote for her…

    In the words of Juno: “Hells yeah.” There’s too much at stake to play around with an independent vote for spite.

  • doubtful said:

    “I noticed you didn’t actually make a comment about the article ‘The End of Asterisks’ in your comment. How do you feel about Clinton’s firewall strategy and her campaigns insistence that Obama’s wins in several instances don’t count? How do you imagine that makes the voters and caucus goers in those states feel?”

    I think the strategy is terrible, but I also think that it will not matter as long as the DNC continues to change the rules as the campaign goes on. The rule that was applied to MI and FL also applies to several other states but have not been used for some reason. In addition, from what I can read of the party rules they were not applied properly anyway.

    The most likely outcome of OH and TX is an even split of delegates with all the weird rules that TX has and (assuming BHO wins in WI, my home state) OH will start to swing towards Obama enough to assure another split.

    If Edwards is convinced to look towards Clinton and the DNC prevails, Clinton will win no matter what her popular vote or number of elected delegates due to the incompetency factor of the DNC. Picking a charismatic JFK type is anathema ever since JFK. Just look at the record. They disliked Bill Clinton with a passion and he may have been their best president since Truman (Truman was not liked eithr, but for different Dixiecrat reasons.) Besides the DNC will have months to figure out a reason to avoid Obama after the last primary vote is in. (Suggestion: corrupting the delegates at the state delegate selection level. Most of the caucuses and primaries were only preliminary. There is often a second and/or a third step in which the preferences can be changed.)

    The DNC is the reason I am independent. They don’t offer much of a choice other than stale ideas. The Republicans offer even less.

    As for the “if Hillary is the nominee” issue, I hear it all the time from all sorts of friends (I live in a very red part of WI.) They don’t like McCain all that much – I am not sure why, he is a pretty good conservative in the Goldwater way – but are struck by the star quality of Obama, the same way they are struck by the star quality of Bush. Don’t laugh, that is the way they look at Bush II, as a messiah.

    I realize that anecdotes are not proof, but I suspect there are plenty of polls that reflect that meme. We will see in the general election.

  • TR @3 – I think you’re right. Just the other day I hired Penn and Shrum to wash my car and they somehow managed to blow it up and burn down half my neighborhood. Now I’m saddled with debt and hated by everyone. But I’m not worried. Penn tells me that it was because my car preferred impressionable elitists, and that I’ll be better off with the Lamborghini he’s selling me at a real good price.

    I can’t wait!

  • The rule that was applied to MI and FL also applies to several other states but have not been used for some reason. -mikeyes

    The rule is that only specific states (Like Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina and Nevada which were added in 2006) are allowed to hold a primary prior to February 5th. Only Florida and Michigan chose to violate the rule. Which other unauthorized states held their primaries prior to February 5th and weren’t punished?

    In addition, from what I can read of the party rules they were not applied properly anyway. -mikeyes

    Please support this claim because I’ve seen nothing to suggest this, in fact, this is the first time I’ve heard such a claim being made.

    It isn’t like it was a surprise to Florida and Michigan. They were made aware of the consequence and even given time to make changes.

    http://thehill.com/campaign-2008/dnc-tells-florida-dems-to-change-primary-plan-2007-08-25.html

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/01/AR2007120100722.html

    This is still the Democratic primary and the Party gets to make the rules whether we agree with them or not.

  • All those “asterisked”, no-count, states that Obama has won… They seem to me to be on a par with his other tactic: get lots of *small* donations, from as many people as possible, rather than a few big checks from a small pool of supporters. And it appeals to me, because I’m used to saving a nickel here and shaving off a quarter there and picking up a penny, if I see one lying in the street. Eventually, even if it takes a bit of time and effort, I’ll have a dollar.

    But I know plenty of people who don’t think that such chump change is worth the effort; why bother, if you’re certain that you’ll win really big tomorrow — on the lottery, on the horse track, wherever. Or your paychecks are so huge, that even a dollar doesn’t matter; it has to be at least 10 bucks, before you even notice it’s money. And I think it’s that second attitude which caught Hillary unprepared. The whole campaign didn’t seem to realize that you can accumulate almost as much (or more) in dribs and drabs, as you can in a single — but big — blow out.

    And now, this dollar — accumulated through careful husbanding of pennies and wisely invested — is snowballing for Obama, it’s accruing interest/paying dividends. And it will accrue more and more of that interest, as long as the principal remains intact (ie, as long as he doesn’t screw up, big time). Until, perhaps, he’ll be able to count on some real “money” coming in even from the big states.

  • mikeyes @50, thanks for the link to that letter.

    Though i’m more than a little perturbed that Debbie Dingell prints her name as a signature; on the other hand, maybe it explains a lot when our representative to the DNC signs her name like she never left the 5th grade.

  • Maybe Hillary should start a rumor that Obama fathered a black child. It worked for Bush against McCain in 2000.

  • Comments are closed.