Wednesday’s campaign round-up

April 23, 2008

Today’s installment of campaign-related news items that wouldn’t generate a post of their own, but may be of interest to political observers:

* Whether you liked the outcome of the Pennsylvania primary or not, the turnout rates were pretty impressive: “Pennsylvania’s primary day turnout approached general election levels this year, state officials said Tuesday night. The result comes on the heels of unprecedented Democratic voter registration in the months leading up to the presidential primary. Voters in some counties participated at double and triple the level of the previous two presidential cycles — up to 60 percent in Clinton-supporting Allegheny County — although there is little basis for comparison, since the nomination had been essentially decided by the time the 2000 and 2004 primaries were held, so both were basically uncompetitive contests.”

* The Obama campaign has ruled out going after Clinton on ’90s-era controversies, such as Whitewater and cattle futures. Good to know.

* Obama continues to look like the favorite in North Carolina, where SurveyUSA shows him ahead by nine percentage points, 50% to 41%.

* On a related note, Obama also got a boost in North Carolina yesterday, when 29 state legislators, including the Senate Majority Leader and the former House Speaker, endorsed him.

* Clinton will likely get a net gain of between 10 and 12 delegates as a result of her victory in Pennsylvania.

* Obama picked up another superdelegate this morning: “Oklahoma Gov. Brad Henry endorsed Barack Obama for the Democratic presidential nomination Wednesday, calling him an inspirational leader who can unite the country. ‘I believe Senator Obama is uniquely positioned to unite our nation and move beyond the divisiveness and partisan skirmishes that too often characterize politics as usual in Washington,’ Henry said early Wednesday in a statement released by the Obama press office in Chicago.”

* North Carolina Republicans are getting surprisingly desperate, especially for April, running an ugly ad against state gubernatorial candidates on the Jeremiah Wright controversy. (The RNC and the McCain campaign are reportedly urging the state party to drop the ad.)

* Speaking of McCain, he won 73% of the Republican vote in Pennsylvania yesterday. Isn’t that a little low?

* Using results she previously said wouldn’t count, Clinton is now arguing she’s ahead in the popular vote count.

* And for all of yesterday’s excitement, let’s not lose sight of the fascinating contest in Mississippi: “Prentiss County Chancery Clerk Travis Childers (D) and Southaven Mayor Greg Davis (R) are headed to a May 13 runoff in the open special election to fill the northern Mississippi House seat of now-Sen. Roger Wicker (R). According to unofficial results posted by The Associated Press, neither man was able to secure the simple majority of votes necessary to secure an outright victory in the crowded six-way primary contest, although between them, the two men accounted for 95 percent of the total vote in the special election. In perhaps the most surprising turn of events in what was a safe Republican district under Wicker, Childers got 49 percent of the vote to Davis’ 46 percent, coming just a few hundred votes shy of locking up the special election outright on Tuesday night. No party IDs appeared on the special election ballot.”

You fools!!! It’s made out of people!!! Soylent green is people!!!

  • Clinton will likely get a net gain of between 10 and 12 delegates as a result of her victory in Pennsylvania.

    If only there were 15 more Pennsylvanias she could tie Obama.

    Using results she previously said wouldn’t count, Clinton is now arguing she’s ahead in the popular vote count.

    Desperation. She must have realized there aren’t 15 more Pennsylvanias.

  • I’m glad to see someone is talking about Hillary’s nuke nonsense comments.

    Dr. Jeffrey Lewis, Director of the Nuclear Strategy and Nonproliferation Initiative at the New America Foundation, says, “better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to open one’s mouth and remove all doubt.” He makes the argument well.

  • I just realize that I could run a whole busy blog with just the bits that don’t generate a post for CB. 🙂

  • unprecedented Democratic voter registration

    NPR reported the day before the primary that Pennsylvania allows registration up to just 30 days before a primary vote. In that time, 160,000 Repubs switched their registration to Dem. Anyone thinking what I’m thinking?

  • Clinton’s worst argument is that Obama can’t win Pennsylvalia in the fall – (a) the turnout and registration numbers suggest otherwise, and (b) Obama can lose PA and still can beat McCain better than Hillary can, by turning western states blue.

  • You would think that after Senator Clinton’s stunning sledgehammering of Mr. Flash in the Pan last night, this blog could have devoted a post to congratulating Hillary on her grit, tenacity, courage and belief in herself.

    But no. You can never compliment a woman when you’re too busy fawning over a man. Out of 10 items in this roundup, five are oohing and aahing over Mr. Stupendous. The only references to Clinton are a sentence about her net gain of 10-12 delegates that doesn’t even congratulate her on this important feat, plus some nonsense about how she’s counting the popular vote now when she didn’t before. Why shouldn’t she use every argument available to her, like Senator Sexism does with his constant harping on the pledged delegates? Neither can win without the superdelegates, so why shouldn’t Clinton tell them anything she thinks might get them to wake up from their dream world and see the white light?

  • IFP,

    Her stupendous feat consisted of having half her previous lead torn away in a mere six weeks. That’s like calling Grampy McCain’s being shot down and captured “mission accomplished”.

    I know we shouldn’t feed the trolls, but I’m going to be gone for a while and I thought you might get hungry and die or something.

    You really are the sort of one-issue uber-fan who has so often sunk the Democratic party. Why won’t you a Republican candidate you can fawn over this time out?

  • Ref #10

    The problem is not only this blog but several others and all the networks just fawn over Mr Unelectable but thats another story because the have a dream that MR Elite is going to turn ID, WY, MT, ND and SD blue and lose OH, PA, MI and FL and somehow win in Nov. To much dreaming for Mr Messiah on all the blogs and networks. Should be interesting with the networks trying to outpraise each other in the general with McCain vs Obama it will make for nausating TV and reading this fall.

  • The only references to Clinton are a sentence about her net gain of 10-12 delegates that doesn’t even congratulate her on this important feat, plus some nonsense about how she’s counting the popular vote now when she didn’t before. — IFP

    Clinton was noted in all the Pennsylvania-related news in this round-up, including the first one which you missed.

    Clinton has had such few victories recently that I guess you need harp on them and scream bloody murder when they don’t completely dominate the discourse.

  • fawn over Mr Unelectable

    MR Elite

    Mr Messiah

    Unfortunately, it’s all too typical for a man to copy a woman’s style and then try to claim her accomplishment and creativity for his own. Please, Comeback Bill, if you support Senator Clinton as I do, don’t dishonor her by plagiarizing me.

  • Oh, it looks like Clinton’s second victory-day of the primary has really emboldened the Clinton shills. Hello, Comeback Bill.

  • Insane Fake Professor: accept no substitutes!

    (especially when they’re so goddamn stupid that they can’t recognize satire)

  • Danp @17: Yeah, I had to read it twice before I could believe it wasn’t IFP.

    But Comeback is funny in his own right: I’m still chuckling over his theory that Hillary can win by “keeping it close in NC”. And if pigs had wings, we’d stop worrying about the pigeons. Also: “if she wins decisively in Indiana” — ah, the sweet, heady aroma of self-delusion in the morning. It almost makes me forgive the ill-educated, dim, and unthinking Clinton supporters who gave her a win in PA.

    As for unelectable, here’s why I’ll never vote for Clinton: “bush (Yale), clinton (Yale), clinton (Yale), bush (Yale), bush (Yale), clinton? (Yale).” This is America. I don’t know if anybody else has noticed, but we don’t have a hereditary elite. And I, for one, don’t want to help create one.

  • The best part about yesterday’s primary:
    27% of the R’s voted for Ron Paul or Mike Huckabee. The GOP tries to force McCain down the throats of conservatives and it’s not going to work. If McCain is their man, they will lose in November. The GOP is toast.

  • So if it’s fair to call Obama Senator Sexism, is it okay to call Clinton Senator Racism?
    Or is either claim really just silly?

  • Dear Danp and Hannah,

    Kindly stop the rovian spin on what Senator Clinton said.

    She said that countries that agree NOT to go nuclear in response to Iran’s getting the bomb would be protected by an expanded nuclear embrella.

    Dr. Lewis seems to have missed that, and so have you.

  • Lance(22): I am not sure what I need to defend myself against, but here are two stories that you seemed to have missed:

    GMA –Hillary: If Iran Attacked Israel With Nukes ‘We Would Be Able to Totally Obliterate Them’
    and Countdown – Iran risking massive retaliation.

    But here’s a more complete rundown.

  • I don’t think many people outside the state realize it, but certain endorsements – including that of the state legislators – could be extremely counterproductive in North Carolina. The legislature has a very strong history of corruption among the party, something I’m deeply ashamed of and angry about as a Democrat. John Edwards’ endorsement would also probably be a negative here – he’s not well liked in this state, not least because he took a Senate seat from here and did nothing with it but attempt to run for president, rather than looking out for our interests or, really, that of the party. I believe there was a poll cited here a few weeks ago showing that his was a negative, but many seemed surprised by it. They shouldn’t be.

  • Minor point in this era of big lies, but Clinton didn’t win by “double-digits” in PA. With 99.5 percent of precincts reporting, it’s 54.6 to 45.4%. That’s a 9.2 margin of victory.

  • “Tennessee Rep. John Tanner announced Wednesday he is backing Hillary Clinton’s White House bid.”

    “Tanner, a Democrat representing Tennessee’s 8th District, is one of the more than 700 party superdelegates who will ultimately decide which candidate wins the Democratic presidential nomination.”

    I guess you “forgot” to include this superdelegate endorsement for Clinton, just like you “forgot” to mention that 100 PA mayors endorsed her before PA.

    Liberal/progressive media is no better than the MSM you vilify. So what are citizens actually getting? Balanced, fair, informative coverage? Nope. We’re getting far-left spin, in the same vein as far-right spin.

    Way to squelch democracy and cut off any channels of open dialogue. How soon will it be before we are expected to bow down to the left on-high?

  • The 100 Mayors thing again, really? You’re still talking about that? C’mon, she had a Harrisburg rally called “100 Mayors for HIllary” and less than 20 showed up. It wasn’t one of her campaign’s better trail momemnts.

    So not only are you a Hillary supporter but you have open resentment and nastiness towards what you perceive to be the “far-left?” (And you think CB is the far left? Are you serious?) Does that mean you like Hillary because you think she’s a centrist? Because she’s not, she’s just as far to the left as Obama, if not a little more to the left than he.

    Or perhaps you’re just a sad, pathetic GOPer trying to do a Hillbot impersonation. That would make the most sense.

  • Hillary supposedly signed this DNC pledge last year– it makes her look like a pretty big hypocrite for making the argument that Florida and Michigan should be included as part of the popular vote count. (Something that I heard Terry McAuliffe try and argue today.)

    Here is the important part:

    “THEREFORE, I Hillary Clinton, Democratic Candidate for President, pledge I shall not campaign or participate in any state which schedules a presidential election primary or caucus before Feb. 5, 2008, except for the states of Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire and South Carolina, as “campaigning” is defined by rules and regulations of the DNC.”

    It’s a pretty simple argument– Hillary agreed to the rules beforehand in writing and now says they don’t apply. She didn’t agree to a popular vote contest or a Biggest States Won contest. She agreed to the system we have and is trying to challenge the rules mid-game.

    This tactic not only reeks of hypocrisy it reeks of desperation as well. She wants all the votes to count– which in Hillary’s mind are only the ones that vote for her.

    • Comments are closed.