Archives

A sample text widget

Etiam pulvinar consectetur dolor sed malesuada. Ut convallis euismod dolor nec pretium. Nunc ut tristique massa.

Nam sodales mi vitae dolor ullamcorper et vulputate enim accumsan. Morbi orci magna, tincidunt vitae molestie nec, molestie at mi. Nulla nulla lorem, suscipit in posuere in, interdum non magna.

The Democratic “race” is over for Clinton..even her campaign admits it.

My rebuttal to Steve’s post and others of like mind, or who are overwhelmingly or over-the-top Clinton partisans who somehow think that Clinton still has a snowball’s chance at winning the Democratic campaign is this column underlining why she won’t win. In this column, after a list of reasons is given why her chances are slim, we see that her own campaign operatives  don’t believe she’ll win either:

As it happens, many people inside Clinton’s campaign live right here on Earth. One important Clinton adviser estimated to Politico privately that she has no more than a 10 percent chance of winning her race against Barack Obama, an appraisal that was echoed by other operatives…Her advisers say privately that the nominee will be clear by the end of June. At the same time, they recognize that the nominee probably is clear already.

Want more evidence of the Clinton campaign in trouble if you don’t believe her own operatives? How about the fact her campaign is now essentially in the red?

Some folks love a good horse-race; others just plain dislike Obama. That doesn’t change the facts that Clinton can’t win this race without a massive intervention by the superdelegates – which would tear the Democratic Party apart. That doesn’t seem to concern her or her supporters however. Hopefully the Supers will come to their senses, see what is going on, and give their endorsement to the acknowledged front-runner who has won more states primaries, more state caucuses and more popular vote – that would be Barack Obama – and allow him and the Dems to take on the real enemy, which is John McCain and the Republicans.

51 comments to The Democratic “race” is over for Clinton..even her campaign admits it.

  • thebraintrust

    Hillary would really have to run up big scores to get anywhere close to a win in the popular vote. She has been 56% or higher 4 times (Arkansas, Mass, NY, and RI). Even if you throw Ohio in there, since she got close, that is nowhere near the 8 times she will have to do it from here on out. I would be shocked if she got that high in more than 3 states (Penn, West Virginia and Kentucky). I bet Obama reaches that level in North Carolina and Oregon and probably South Dakota, so it would be pretty much a wash.

    Hillary cannot catch him in delegates, and will not catch him in popular vote. It is not that Obama supporters are scared of Hillary, I think most privately laugh at how her campaign has never taken off. Probably reminds most Libs of the Ignatieff campaign, lots of generals and very few foot soldiers.

    What people are disappointed in is the fact that Clinton supporters appear to be hell-bent on destroying the party rather than working together. They would rather support McCain, a man who has dubious relations with female lobbyists to say the least, a man who is all for going to war with Iran, a man who wants to stay in Iraq for a hundred years, a man who was at the center of the Lincoln Savings and Loan scandal (a scandal eerily reminiscent of Bear Stearns), a man who was against the Bush tax cuts before he was for them, the fact he was against the Bush/Cheney torture legislation before he was for it, the fact he was against agents of intollerance before he stood shoulder to shoulder with them. That is what is disappointing. Anyone who can say they would rather support McCain than Obama are probably the same people waiting for the Ignatieff silver bullet to save the Liberal party. Basically a bunch of know-it-alls that talk alot but rarely, if ever, do anything on the ground.

  • Ted

    Wow…Just saw Carville on the Wolf Blitzer show, he is not backing off . He stand by every comment regarding Richardson.

  • KC: well put. In order for Clinton to win, she’d need to set the superdelegates against the grassroots’ delegates.  And, barring a Really Good Reason for doing so (Wright ain’t that reason), the superdelegates won’t want that kind of spectacle.  They’d face a revolt from Black America, and for good reason.

    And I somehow doubt Clinton will maintain a 55% lead in the popular vote from here on out. Especially when she’s got her husband calling Obama unpatriotic.

    (Which is what that "McCarthy" thing was about. Funny how Antonio so carefully danced around Clinton’s comments, huh?)

  • sorry I just got home from easter dinner, I had no intention to mislead, I did mean popular vote.

    As for you Scott, Michael Ignatieff, Bob Rae, Gerard Kennedy, Stephane Dion.

    The "old guard is bad" argument is a little rich coming from you…

  • KC

    Steve – This is a silly argument I’ve heard from Clinton supporters before.   The reality is that superdelegates can vote so the "threshold" of elected delegates a candidate has to surpass to win before convention has always taken that into account.   If the superdelegates respect the will of the voters–and dont overturn their votes–the threshold for winning is actually 50%+1 of the elected delegates which even you concede Obama will likely obtain.   In other words Obama only needs superdelegates to win because superdelegates exist.  If they didnt he would be the presumptive nominee.  There is a big difference between saying Clinton needs the superdelegates to win and saying Obama needs the superdelegates to win.  Clinton needs them to win period.  Obama only needs them to avoid having the elected delegates overriden.

    You may have been suggesting that Clinton can win the popular vote with 55-45 but Antonio quite clearly meant that she can surpass him in delegates with those numbers which is a crock. 

  • I was talking about popular vote, which is a 55-45 proposition, without Flo and Mich.  There is no way she can catch Obama in delegates, especially without those two states.

    I would add though, the super-delegate argument is funny, considering Obama will need them too.  Both candidates need the super-delegates to put them over the top, which speaks to just how close things really are.

  • Ted:

    Carville’s a real piece of work isn’t he? By using that comparison, I guess that means if we use Bill Richardson as the metaphor for Judas Iscariot, Hillary is supposed to be Jesus?

    As said elsewhere, Carville is one to be talking about betrayal, when he was the one trying to do an open coup against Howard Dean and trying to get him removed as DNC chairperson (which utterly failed). Carville represents the "old guard" (maybe just plain old) of the Democratic Party, and the Clintons are in that group.

    Time for fresh blood and fresh ideas.. and fresh hope.

  • Thanks for those numbers on delegates, KC. It’s obvious a few Clinton supporters on here are engaging in fantasy math.

  • Ted

    Bill Richardson endorsment of Obama: NYT Today“An act of betrayal,” said James Carville an adviser to Mrs. Clinton and a friend of Mr. Clinton. “Mr. Richardson’s endorsement came right around the anniversary of the day when Judas sold out for 30 pieces of silver, so I think the timing is appropriate, if ironic,” Mr. Carville said, referring to Holy Week.

  • Anyone who would support McCain over Obama is absolutely NOT a progressive.

  • KC

    Just so Im clear I dont expect that she will drop out until AT LEAST North Carolina or Oregon–if then. 

  • KC

    Clinton CANNOT surpass Obama with elected delegates by winning 55-45 in the remaining contests.  I just ran the math on the Slate delegate counter and she would still trail by 102 delegates.    Even if we give her 60-40 in Penn and 55-45 in the rest she would be behind by 86 delegates.  Even with Florida and Michigan that would be a stretch by my calculations (she would trail by 71 elected delegates under the 55-45 scenario and 55 with the enhanced Penn numbers).  She will NEED superdelegates to win.   Maybe she can convince them to support her if she goes into the convention with "momentum" or a lead in popular vote (also a stretch); but she has to realize that overturning the pledged delegates–momentum or not–is going to piss off just as many people as ignoring Florida and Michigan. 

    Clinton is free to stay until the end and I think she does have a 10-20% chance but she could destroy the potential nominees chance of beating McCain in the process.   Its basically a scorched earth policy and I think history will judge her for that. 

  • steve is right, with no redo in Mich or Florida, Hillary only needs the infamous 55-45 wins all the way through to tie Obama in delegates heading into denver, with the two states who havent voted cheering loudly to make their voices heard…

    There is still work to do for the Obama campaign and now that Hillary is the clear underdog, we will see the Clintons at their best…

  • I think Steve V handles this whole argument the best — just win and us Clinton believers will shut up and go away.  Well, I wouldn’t go away, I’d just support Obama. 

    But still, why are some Obama supporters so scared of Clinton being in the race?  If it’s because you think she’s going to rip the party apart I think that just ruins her chances more than anything and likely boosts his chances to become the nominee and the winner in November.

    Take the high road and just win.  She’s not going to drop out before Penns and she’s likely going to win Penns so those who don’t like her or her campaign will just have to swallow that fact.

  • Ted

    Hillary is ruthless, we all knew that when she was in the Whitehouse (travelgate etc.), what we could be seeing here is scorched earth.

  • BTW, the new Rasmussen poll, which you cited the other day now has Clinton leading.

    This is fun 🙂

    And Scott, you said on another blog that Clinton needs 70% plus of the remaining vote to surpass Obama in popular vote.  That isn’t true, she needs 56% of the remaining vote, excluding Florida and Michigan.  Just to keep it in perspective.

    One quick note, your rebuttal never deals with the premise of my argument.  If it is over, why is Clinton ahead in some polls, in some states.  If it’s "book it, bank it" time, then Obama should be pulling away. 

    Realistically, Clinton probably only has a very slim chance.   However, for you to say it’s over, means you aren’t allowing for the unknown, which is surprising, given the last week or two. 

    When Obama is the nominee, you won’t have to keep beating everyone over the head with "Obama is the nominee".  Just win baby!!!  And that’s the bottomline, all this bias aside.  Win freaking Penn, rout Clinton in North Carolina, kick her ass in Indiana.  Quit whining and show that you are the nominee.

    BTW, if find this tone a bit strange, given that you were the guy pumping up Huckabee, when McCain had 3 times the delegates, the guy who really didn’t have a chance.  Remember?

    Anyways, agree to disagree 🙂

  • A 60-40 PA lead will NOT split Obama’s lead.

    By the way, A new Gallup Poll out today shows Obama has retaken the national lead from Clinton.

    "The Speech" and Richardson’s endorsement probably being key factors.

    As I’ve said elsewhere, Obama is the nominee. Book it. Bank it.

  • The fact that the CEO of one of the contractors involved in “Snoopergate” is both a donor and adviser to the Obama campaign should make it fairly evident there’s really nothing to this story in terms of political shenanigans. It’s probably more indicative of an unsurprising level of incompetence and mismanagement at the lower levels of the State Department, if anything.

    To imagine that this whole messy scenario was artfully concocted by the Obama campaign as a conveniently-timed distraction (as suggested by Shoshanna) smacks more than a little of crackpot conspiracy theorizing. But then, consider the source…
     

  • Ted

    Michigan and Florida……..will not count….lets have a rumble at the convention….what a mess…..

  • s.b.

    Oh Antonio we’ve agreed about things before and you aren’t supposed to tell anyone.  That’s our secret.

  • s.b.

    By the way the difference with the passpot issue is that the other two people who worked for the Clinton donor were fired a while ago and they were new workers brought in to adress the backlog of applications this summer.

    The person who works for the Obama "Security Advisor" was a) not fired, b) only accessed Obama’s file three times and McCain’s once and c) is a long time ver good very reliable expericenced employee.

    So one looks suspicious especially since the Obama campaign used this info to distract from the Wright controversy and look like the victim while blaming Clinton and the guy is Obama’s national security advisor and his employee is experienced and reliable.

    Hmmm.

  • the end is nigh

    i agree with shoshana

    /hi shoshana

  • s.b.

    Scott a 40-60 split in Pennsylvania, which looks likely, will eliminate half of Obama’s delegate lead and she will lead in the popular vote by 300,000.  Then there’s Kentucky, and West Viriginia, which looks like a 30 point spread for Clinton.   

    It’s not over, no matter what Politico makes up or Bill richardson says.
    To be honest with you, when people tell Clinton its over, voters tend to run to the polls to disagree.  It is insulting to the states that haven’t voted yet.  

  • KC

    I guess you’re cool with being complicity in "bomb, bomb bomb[ing] Iran" then.  Your call I guess.   I’d rather take my chance with a Democrat–Clinton or Obama. 

  • Ted

    Bill Richardson endorsment of Obama:  NYT  Today“An act of betrayal,” said James Carville, an adviser to Mrs. Clinton and a friend of Mr. Clinton. “Mr. Richardson’s endorsement came right around the anniversary of the day when Judas sold out for 30 pieces of silver, so I think the timing is appropriate, if ironic,” Mr. Carville said, referring to Holy Week.

  • red tory, the difference is that one is a simple donor, while the other is an advisor…

    supporter vs. member of the campaign…

    candidates should be able to control those on the campaign. I wouldnt be surprised if this guy had to leave…

  • I have said it on my blog too.

    If I was american and my choices were John McCain and Barack Obama, I would vote for McCain for President.

    McCain with a democratic congress and Senate probably wouldnt be a bad thing for Canada either

  • James Bow:
    Antonio is on record telling KC (and inferring to me) he’d rather vote McCain then vote Obama if that were to occur… hence KC’s taking him to task.

    Red Tory:
    Yea.. too many links causes my spam filter to jump up and claim a comment. I’ve manually recovered it and given it a new time-stamp so people dont miss it.

  • My, you’re being a hack today Antonio. From Raw Story:

    The Associated Press later identified Stanley, Inc. as the Virginia-based contractor whose two employees were terminated. One prescient blogger who guessed correctly that Stanley was the contractor in question noted that its CEO is a political donor:

    …[O]ne thing that would add to the appearance of impropriety is that CEO Nolan has, according to the Open Secrets database, been a campaign contributor to Sen. Joe Lieberman, a leading supporter of Obama’s Republican adversary John McCain. In March 2005 Nolan gave $1,000 to Lieberman’s reelection campaign.

    The NBC News ‘Deep Background’ blog has more on Stanley as well as another firm involved in the breaches, The Analysis Corporation of McLean, including the revelation from public records that Stanley CEO Nolan "gave $1,000 to Sen. Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign on Feb. 20, 2008" and Analysis CEO John Brennan "gave $2,300 to Sen. Obama on Jan. 28, 2008."Why not try to present the complete story rather than just one sliver of it?

  • Darren — I tried posting information on that earlier but it got snagged as "spam" for some reason. Maybe it was the various links included. Anyway, my point being that Antonio was again being highly selective with his sneering "Change, change, change" comment.

  • KC

    Is this the rest of how this stupid campaign is going to go?  Someone’s "aide" or "advisor" or "supporter" or whatever says or does something dumb; the other side screams bloody murder and demands that the other repudiate that individual?  Get over it! 

  • So, Antonio, lay your cards on the table: assuming that you can vote in the American general election, if Barack Obama wins the Democratic Party nomination, would you vote for Barack Obama, or would you vote for John McCain, or would you just stay home?

  • Antonio,

    In all fairness and as someone who leans towards Clinton as well — I feel like it should be noted that a Clinton supporter has ties to one of those contractors for passports too.  I mean — it’s Washington and these are contracting companies based in Washington — there are GOING to be political connections but the whole thing being political motivated is a whole other story.  That has not been proven.

  • calling a former president McCarthy-esque is a new kind of politics.

    it is not the Obama campaign saying whatever it takes to try and gain a little traction?

    Carville’s line is still the most hilarious, if not over-the-top…

    Mr. Richardson’s endorsement came right around the anniversary of the day when Judas sold out for 30 pieces of silver, so I think the timing is appropriate, if ironic," Mr. Carville said, referring to Holy Week.

  • Hard to believe that the same Bill Clinton that slammed George HW Bush in 1992 for attacking Clinton’s patriotism — invoking how Bush 41’s father Prescott went after Joe McCarthy’s witch-hunt — would now attack Obama’s patriotism in 2008.   After reading about that, I reckon it’s now game set match.

    It’s also hard to believe the Clinton superdelegates are still saying that it’s their job to use their "judgment" to secure a winner in case there is no clear winner by the end of the primary process.   Translation:   Screw the will of the people and let’s go back to the smoke filled backrooms. 
    Some of the progressive websites in the States (can’t recall which ones) have suggested Harry Reid, the current Senate Dem leader, is offering to step aside so Mrs. Clinton can take the role if she would only drop her presidential bid so the party can be united.   I do think it makes sense — because if Obama winds up winning it all he’ll need a strong Senate attacker to push through his appointments over GOP objections and Clinton is just the person to do that.   Then again there’s a chance that the Dems could also get a filibuster proof majority of 60 this fall, so it could be academic.

    One thing that can be said is that in many states that have had primaries so far, each of the candidates have gotten more votes than all the Republicans combined; and also more votes than John Kerry got in the generals of 2004 — even in Red States.   Since Obama has won more Red States where the public mood is increasingly turning foul, and he understands better the resentment of both blacks and whites against "the system," he has more of what it takes to take on McCain.    If Clinton’s campaign is losing money even with her $5 million "loan," something is wrong with her argument that she should be The One.   If she can’t manage her own balance sheet, she certainly can’t balance the federal budget.

  • Scott, you have a previous comment trapped in your Spam filter.

  • Antonio seems to be conveniently overlooking the fact that the Clinton campaign has twice now suggested that the Republican nominee would be a better president than Barrack Obama; first by suggesting that either McCain or Clinton were had more experience and now by making the charge that both of them are more "patriotic" than Obama. This is unprecedented, but reflects the level of unscrupulous "win at all costs"  mentality of the Clintons.  They don’t seem to give a toss if their efforts create long-term damage to the Dems ultimate objective of taking back the White House — they’re all about power and satisfying their own personal ambitions.

  • more change…the CEO of the company of one of the contractors who breached passport information is an Obama advisor….

    CHANGE CHANGE CHANGE

  • Yes how can I forget Obama is about change.

    Here is something new: I never saw a Democrat call a former Democratic President "McCarthy-esque"

    very classy…Are we all certain the wheels arent falling off the bus here?

  • KC

    BTW Dion always had a better than 10% chance of winning.   That may have been the media narrative but at least some of us knew better. 

  • KC

    Antonio, Hillary Clinton isnt Stephane Dion.  She doesnt have Rae and Kennedy delegates to pick up.    Momentum or not going into Denver; you think overriding Fl and Mi is going to piss people off?  Try pissing of all the people who supported Obama across the entire country just to be overrided by a bunch of party hacks.  THAT will doom the nomination.  Hillary’s only hope is to get ahead in the popular vote and that is a long shot.  That is her ONLY chance of becoming President (she might become nominee with the supers overriding the pledges–but not President).

    And Obama isnt "opposing" a revote.   That is a myth being perpetuated by Clinton supporters.   While he may have identified some legitimate issues with the plan for a revote in Michigan he has said he will comply with what the DNC decides.    Its like Clinton wants him to make calling for revotes part of his stump speech.  Would she do the same if the roles were reversed?  Absolutely not. 

    I think its pretty pathetic that you say you would support McCain over Obama.  I remember saying the same thing about Iggy when he was running for Liberal leader but at least it was born out of a genuine disagreement with his views.  Your only beef with Obama seems to be that he may not be perfect in living up to his message of hope–which still places him leaps and bounds above Clinton on the ethics meter.   If you support Clinton’s policies you should have no real problem supporting Obama’s.   Sounds like sour grapes to me.

  • Good post Scott! It’s now crystal clear. Hillary would rather John McCain be president than a Democrat.

    I can’t see any other reason she stays in the race.

    Like can’t someone promise her Senate majority leader or something. She’d be a heck of a lot better for that job anyways.

  • I agree — this primary is over.

  • Why "silence" them? Well, other than the fact that it helps place the rules of the race over the naked opportunism that seems to be part-and-parcel with the Clinton campaign, it helps prevent an "all states have their primaries on Jan. 1st" situation, which was the problem in the first place.

    And, uh, America ain’t Canada. The only thing that is similar between 2006 and 2008 is the transparent willingness of  supporters of the onetime "inevitable" nominee to sabotage the interests of the party as a whole.

    (Hmm. Come to think of it, I seem to recall Antonio backing a certain academic…)

  • and besides scott, if he is the overwhelming favorite to win, why oppose the re-votes in Michigan and Florida?

    Silencing two swing states is electoral suicide for the Democrats.

    Obama doesnt want to give Clinton an opportunity to take 4 months of momentum into denver. If the campaign is over, why is he taking his foot off the pedal?

  • Dion had about a 10% chance of winning too…

  • Tomm

    Scott,
    It certainly looks likely that Obama wins the Dem Nomination, but that doesn’t mean Clinton should pull out.  Right now the Dems have two good spokesepeople, they have back-up, and they are catching the press. 
    Unless Clinton is running out of money, there is no reason for her not to continue.
    Tomm

  • Scott,

    I hope you’d call yourself an "over-the-top Obama partisan" too.

  • Steve:

    I’m not the only one who said she had little chance of winning – that was what her own operatives said. They’re not "overwhelmingly Obama partisan".

  • Scott, you have to remember though, you are viewing this as a "over whelmingly" Obama partisan. 

unique visitors since the change to this site domain on Nov 12, 2008.