Okay, Hillary supporters, here is your chance. Please explain to me how your candidate is going to win the nomination. And, once she has won the nomination, please explain how she will put humpty-dumpty back together again. Here’s a reference for you to use on the pledged delegate count. You can make up any scenario you want for how many pledged delegates she’ll pick up between now and the end of the nominating contests (whether that be Puerto Rico, or newly held Michigan and Florida contests). But, once you’ve explained that, please explain how that translates into victory for your candidate. And then let me know why whatever it is that is in your plan will not alienate blacks, the youth vote, Obama’s supporters, and people that believe in Democracy, so badly that you won’t lose massive amounts of turnout from those groups.
If you want to, go ahead and post it as a diary. I’d love to see someone explain it to me.
In fact, I just posted a piece about how SHE CANNOT WIN.
No way, no how.
Barring, of course, some evil deus ex machinations…
bad link.
Good Link
The caucuses in TX are likely to go Obama’s way… which means that Hillary might have won the TX battle but lost the TX war.
I told one friend that the caucuses still weren’t all in and that it could still go bad for Hillary. She just rolled her eyes and puffed a slight exclamation against the press.
They really need to stop trying to jump the gun on these races.
I’m not technically a Hillary supporter but…
She convinces enough “super-delegates” to support her and then she convinces Obama to be VP.
Case closed.
Okay, how does she convince the guy who currently is ahead in delegates AND the popular vote to become the number two guy? “Ladies first” just doesn’t seem like it will cut it.
In her comments that Boo quoted from the “Kill Me” thread, she seemed to concede a bit that she Obama more than he needed her.
That’s all I’ll say here. I look forward to reading the rest of the comments.
Well of course it’s because he’s the “Black Guy” and the “Black Guy” is always supposed to take second place. Duhhh! Back of the bus, black folk! Ms. White Lady is ready to help you move on up… but know your place!
Those of you who know me know that I am being sarcastic here. Every time I hear someone suggest he be HER VP (like AG) I get furious and this is what I figure they must be thinking.
I seem to recall several weeks if not months ago, when Obama was asked the question about a joint ticket, he gave a gracious answer while she was evasive. Now that its clear he’s a force to be reckoned with, she’s finally able to say that she might be willing to be on the same ticket with him. Is he supposed to be grateful?
Yes and she is the woman and we all know women NEVER have to take second place to a man.
She may be able to convince Obama to be the VP. But at that point, with her at the top of the ticket, I think the team loses the independent vote to McCain. The independents didn’t break for Obama just to see him be VP. And no matter how persuasive he is, I think they will break for McCain if Hillary is at the top of the ticket.
I also think that some of the increased turnout in AA vote and in youth vote that has shown up in the primaries will not come out, no matter how hard he works for the ticket. Again, they came out for him to be President, not Vice President.
Let me be clear – I think either one of them can beat McCain in the fall UNLESS they get the nomination in a way that turns off the other persons voting base.
I don’t entirely agree with you — it’s not at all clear she could beat McCain. But you do raise an important point, which suggests to me the following: Not only does Obama have nothing to gain from accepting her “generous” offer, but if per impossibile she were to run as HIS vp, she would only hurt his chances.
how does she convince obama to be vp? he’s leading, and it’s virtually impossible, mathematically, for her to overtake him without more dirty deals w/ super D’s, michigan and florida.
what incentive is there for him to concede a hard won advantage to be second on the ticket? l can think of none, regardless of the outcome in november.
assuming hillary somehow pulls off the nomination, and, even less likely, wins the GE, he’d be much better off staying in the senate and building his credentials than as vp as opposed to being tainted by a close association to team clinton.
The VP to President route will be pretty easy for him, even with Clinton taint – I think! That said, I weep for Al gore.
the gore analogy is a stronger corollary than you may have intended. because, imo, that’s exactly what will happen to him if he goes there.
l have serious doubts that clinton can win in november, and should she manage to pull it off, l don’t see any coattails that will significantly alter the situation in the congress…l would anticipate a 1 and done term for her, because the rats are gonna be all over it all the time.
it creates a very difficult problem for obama if he’s vp and gets defeated with a prez hillary in 2012…then his pres ambitions go buh bye.
he can probably keep the senate seat as long as he wants it, but the alternative of second fiddle to the clintons would be the kiss of death for his future.
my 2$ YMMV
Yeah…. you’re probably right. That was my point about Al Gore. 😉
Like I said before, everything I’ve seen in the last eight years and in this campaign so far tells me that he can do more good where he is now than he’d be allowed to do in office.
I’m not sure we deserve a president like Al Gore, yet.
The first part, again, can be explained by Michigan and Florida.
The second part…all I can say is that I honestly believe somebody in Hillary’s brain trust is 110% convinced that the number of people she’ll alienate by pulling this “end justifies the means” garbage (Today’s remarks about offering Obama the VP slot has “back of the bus, boy” written between those lines) would somehow be less than the number of people alienated by voting for a person of color into the White House.
The unspoken land mine in the room is the Bradley Effect, and Hillary of course is just trying to do the best thing for the party through enlightened self-interest.
Cynical? Sure. But then again, it’s the only explanation I’ve got, for better or for worse.
Bradley Effect? Winning Basketball championships?
If Obama were sincerely offered the VP spot and took it (presuming her win rolls eyes) it would be a the best move she could make. I would hope that Hillary would have enough sense to suck up harder than a simple “to the back of the bus)
Maybe she’s just practicing that “lip puckering” action and it’s not coming that easily to her yet.
If Obama accepted a spot as her VP, he’d be a LOT more stupid and gullible than we have been led to believe.
He probably doesn’t hate her, despite the way she has trashed and bloodied him, but only a real masochist would want to be on the same ticket as Clinton, much less serve in the same Administration. He’d be tarred and feathered by the association.
Gore disassociated himself from the Clintons, went on to do good, meaningful work for the planet and has a reputation and legacy to be cherished. Why would Obama embrace the Clintons and leave any dreams of accomplishment behind?
People that are only out for themselves in politics are constitutionally wedded to the idea that what is good for them is synonymous with the good pf the party. In other words they are narcissistic egomaniacs.
Tonight, about 6 o’clock Central European Time, the BBC World Service reported that Clinton may be considering taking Obama as her VP, as reported in BooMan’s post below and in Raw Story, etc. The word is spreading fast, this must be the actual deal. As BooMan points out in the comment, she can’t win the GE because her nomination victory over Obama would alienate African American voters and others.
‘Little Obama, just drop out and I MIGHT throw you a bone.’
Apparently she knows herself that she can’t win the GE alone, so she’s giving him the opportunity to let her win on his coattails, to deliver the black vote. How very generous of her. Very sneaky. Raw Story says that Obama finds the suggestion premature, which I find a very tactful, Obamian answer. The Clinton staff needs to move fast, because Saturday and Tuesday (Mississippi and Wyoming) will put the lie to their spin of victory.
The World Service insists of saying that the contest for the Democratic nomination is now wide open. They have an axe to grind, doubtless.
She goes on a lone-wolf secret mission to Pakistan, jumping from a plane in the dead of night, and returns with Osama bin Laden’s head in a shopping bag.
That’s all I got.
PS: I wouldn’t vote for her even then.
This would be an impressive feat.
Then I might even vote for her!
NYT “Simple Math is now her enemy.”
By having Dangerstein support Obama.
While she’s in explaining mode, I’d like to know how she plans on going up against McCain if she is the nominee, after she has endorsed him 3x just today as the more experienced candidate-all the while touting her own #1 campaign strength as experience. Come on.
This is her demonstration of being a smart tactician? Giving a signed, sealed, delivered playbook to her eventual opponent?
Bravo.
BooMan, The explanations as to how HRC do seem to be in rather short supply, if not nearly nonexistant. In fact the sound of crickets chirping is starting to become overwhelming.
give the folks at Talk Left a guest front page, I’m sure they have all sorts of fever dreams, I mean ideas.
Not sure who is having fever dreams around here.
I had a conversation over at TL this afternoon. They are nodding to the proposal that the faux primaries in MI and FL now count. There was a lot of false argumentation, but the bottom line is that it would give Clinton more delegates. So I doubt that anyone there is going to post how Clinton is going to win the nomination without skullduggery.
So what ranks or doesn’t rank is meaningless, really. Since you are here, though, frenchfries, why not take a shot at how Clinton will win the nomination? Your stage.
I’m under the impression that BTD wants a revote, but also wants some delegates granted to the first vote so those voters aren’t disenfranchised. Seems like that’s the Talkleft solution. Jeralyn’s argument for why Florida should be seated as is is valid in a very fair and legal sense. Don’t know what you are talking about here except maybe some commenters you cherry picked through. I’ll leave ranking to the people who rank sites and this blog does not rank with Talkleft.
i just don’t think many clintonistas hang around here anymore. people generally collect in the comments of blogs that they agree with. this site used to have clinton supporters among its readership, but since the blog took such a strong pro-obama stance, i doubt many of them drop by these days.
in other words, don’t take silence to mean that there’s no argument on the other side. it’s more likely that the other side just hasn’t read this post.
And all I have to say is my tummy hurts.
Yuk.
I think you are so right about that.
I am not a supporter, but I am not a non supporter either. My beef and position has been fairness.
I almost left this site myself due to the unfairness, but since it has been my old home, I still continue to come. Don’t know how long I can last against the hate machine.
Unfair?
In that people support Obama here? In that people don’t much support Clinton here?
Well I don’t know if you all have noticed but this blog has not been exactly impartial in this primary. I would guess all the strong Clinton supporters quit reading and posting a month or so ago. I have seen lots of personal insults hurled at those having the audacity to resist the allure of Obama.
Do they still hang women in Texas?
I dunno.. Robotic repetition of talking points worked for Bush’ supporters and that’s all I hear from HRC supporters.
“There is NO mandate”
“Universal healthcare equates with single payer.”
“Hillary knows what she is doing.” (please give me an example where she didn’t absolutely miss the point when things counted or ruin the debate for decades)
It goes on and on..
Obama’s responses today are beginning to intrigue me. While GiddyHillary’s are beginning to remind me of GW’s famous landing on the carrier under the Mission Accomplished sign – Obama has been instead checking his powder, his troops, his message. This morning I wanted him to come out swinging, recapture the mountaintop by tea time so I could get some sleep tonight.
Instead, his interviews today have been measured, and I think I see the tactician in him gathering. He’s not a moment to moment guy, he recognizes impulse is not a politician’s friend, and it looks as though he’s going to come out fighting his way. It’s a maturity and calculation I generally don’t recognize until after the blood is let so I may not be the best judge. But I’m feeling better about the rest of this battle now.
Here’s how she does it. McCain’s numbers rise relative to both her and Obama, so the election no longer looks like a blow-out. The closer it gets, the more important the traditional losing strategy of the DLC of emphasiziong only three states (PA, OH and FL) becomes. Her case is that she takes those states. Obama didn’t win them in the primaries. She swings the super-delegates. That’s her only play as I see it. It’s a long shot, because it depends on Obama’s team not reacting to last night.
that is so sick and twisted you may be right.
Obama wins the pledged delegate count. But if he loses PA, more superdelegates will move to Hillary, maybe even nullifying Obama’s overall delegate lead. Neither gets to 2025. We rerun MI and FL because it’s so close and those states are so big. Maybe it’s a split there. If she ends up taking the popular vote lead it’s a wash with the pledged delegates based on the principle common to both, that “the people should decide.”
They’re so close at this point, the party steps in. Then the determination is made that the have to be on the same ticket together. It’s brokered that Hillary should lead the ticket because you can still bring in Obama’s votes if he’s VP, but you might not get hers if she’s VP. Obama accepts because he can run again and because if he doesn’t accept he looks like the divider of the party.
He can also drop out completely. If he accepts the VP, he’ll look like a complete wimp, lose all the confidence of his supporters and, for all intents and purposes, become a political dud. Mrs. Clinton will preen and strut, gloating from ear to ear, from here to eternity until reality sinks in in November: McCain.
Or, if he drops out he’ll look like he’s dividing the party for his own ego and never recover Hillary’s voters in future elections.
That could be. It can also be that the Clintons have already split the Democratic Party and they cannot depend on the Obama voters in November. All of this cuts two ways. The Clintons are experts at playing the victims.
Even if they can count on the regular Democratic voters, they definitely will not get the independents and crossover Republicans that Obama would get on his own.
Actually this “offer” by Hillary is so one-sided and ill-timed, that what it really suggests is that she is not only delusional about her own chances to win, but also that she truly believes Obama cannot win on his own without the Clintons. Another sign that “something is happening but you don’t know what it is, do you, Mrs Clinton?”
This is the part that never makes sense to me:
Most of her votes come from core party members. Exit poll after exit poll says that self identified Democrats would be happy with either of them even though they voted for one of them. She’s probably brought in a certain percent of new women voters, maybe you wouldn’t get them. But you would get most of her votes.
I think it’s his votes that are the problem. Youth, AA, self identified independents, cross-over Republicans who are really looking to change. You’re right that if she’s at the top of the ticket the best chance of keeping them is if he’s VP. But truthfully I think you lose most of them – even if he works his ass off for the ticket.
If he’s at the top of the ticket, I don’t really see him needing her. It might make it easier, but I don’t see him needing her.
At this point, yes, the numbers don’t show that. But it’s a matter of risk. Will Obama’s young voters come out in the same numbers after all the brutal campaigning? Will the Republican cross-overs hold? Those groups tend to be more fickle and unreliable.
You can have your cake and eat it too with Hillary at the top and Obama as No. 2, or at least it will appear that way to the elder statesmen and stateswomen.
Plus, Hillary-Obama is a potential 16 year deal, while if Obama is at the ticket, does Hillary run at, what, 66? And Obama will have more “experience” then, whereas Hillary will not really gain in that department.
I’m not sure, we may have discussed all of this before, and if so I apologize for reiterating it. Ultimately, Hillary-Obama just feels safer to the establishment types, don’t you think?
No. I don’t think they feel safe with Hillary at the top. Lots of state leaders have been worried since the beginning about having Hillary at the top because they fear she’ll energize the Republican base and hur their downticket races. But she seemed inevitable, so what were they going to do. Now there is an alternative.
For Obama? I don’t see an issue. Non-regular party voters need incentive to come out. People attracted to a particular candidate are usually more energized for that candidate if they believe he won against strong opposition. But would they come out if Obama was only VP? I doubt it. They would see it as him taking a beating and losing. So, the young voters will be less likely to come out in the same numbers with Obama as VP. And the Republicans won’t come out at all for Hillary at the top. You’ll also probably lose party regulars who are AA even if Obama accepts VP.
So to recap – with Hillary at the top the party leaders get to keep the core base (which wasn’t enough in 2004), they gain some extra women, they lose crossover Republicans (who won’t be enough to worry about), they lose independents who go to McCain (that WILL worry party people), they piss off or at least dishearten the youth vote (which is the future of the party) and they probably piss off most AA voters even if he’s the VP.
Out of all of that – I think losing the independents and depressing the AA turnout will worry the party officials a great deal. They know McCain will be working the independents because he fears his own base is weak. His best hope to strengthen his base turnout is to have Hillary on the Dem ticket because he’ll get Hillary hating Republican votes. But he’ll still need to work the independents.
So Dem leaders will want to keep the Dem base strong (i.e keep the AA voters highly motivated) and rope in as many independents as possible to keep them away from McCain. They also will not want to do anything to help McCain turnout his base.
I think in this particular scenario they’ll have heartburn thinking about putting Hillary at the top of the ticket if she didn’t clearly win the nomination by pledged delegates. I think the viable alternative will be more tempting.
I think it depends on the state and the particular district. She polls better than Obama in Florida in a general. Because it depends on the state, her strength in big swing states matter more than Obama’s edge in smaller states, be they swing or red.
Because independents are fungible, if she’s an attack dog, she may turn them off of McCain. She can win independents by simply making them both looking undesirable.
As for AAs, isn’t it the view–God I hate to say this–that they will come home to roost anyway? That they can’t possibly throw away the chance of a black VP, and a future black President?
Meanwhile, Obama at the top means a lot of white voters could stay home or vote McCain. In Ohio, 20% of Democratic primary participants said race was important in their vote, and a clear majority of them were Hillary voters. I think the split was 57-43. If we assume for a moment that the AAs in that poll still come out for Barack, but the whites choose McCain (granted, a worst case scenario), that’s a loss of 250K votes, and an overall swing of 500K in a state that was decided by what, 100K last time?
Meanwhile, AAs in many other states tend to be in reliably red or blue states.
I certainly don’t agree with this in principle, I’m just trying to make Hillary’s case.
I don’t think the Black leaders among the superdelegates will argue that. I think they will argue very strenuously that if the AA community believes that the top of the ticket was stolen from Obama it will depress the AA vote.
What happens when the AA vote is depressed? Dems lose.
Hillary will argue that she can win Ohio in the General Election and that will put her over the top. The superdelegates will think about that claim and remember the 2004 race.
They will assume that all states that went Blue for Kerry will go blue for whoever the Dem nominee is.
They will have to assume a worst case scenario that McCain will win Florida – he’ll have a big machine advantage with the Governor on his side, just as Bush had.
So, is the worst case scenario that it comes down to Ohio again? How did Kerry lose Ohio? Because the AA voters were disenfranchised at a higher rate than white voters thus depressing their turnout in the final results. Do they want to rely on the white racist vote in Ohio being so motiviated by Hillary that it will make up for a depressed AA vote? White racists might also be more likely to voter for the man in a GE and shift to McCain.
But what if they go with Obama and he can’t win Ohio? Can he get the electoral votes from somewhere else? He needs 18. Using 2004 electoral numbers (I have no idea if they’ve changed) yes he can. In the nominating process he won two states that border his home state of Illinois – Missouri and Iowa. But can he carry them in the general? Or are they solidly red? Missouri can be won. I’m here, I’m telling you it can be won. Kerry only lost Iowa by 1%. It can be won too. That’s 18 Electoral Votes. So he can win without Ohio.
In the meantime, all the states that he also won primaries/caucuses in are very excited by him being at the top of the ticket and Dem turnout is increased. Maybe it doesn’t turn them blue but it helps downticket races.
THAT is the analysis the superdelegates will go through.
Hillary won Ohio by 10%. Obama barely won in Missouri, and won Iowa in a caucus, not a private ballot. Once again, Hillary is the safer bet.
As for downticket races, he helps in affluent suburbs like Northern Virginia, she helps in places like Youngstown.
There simply is not a clear cut advantage for Obama here.
It’s going to come down to who’s the better arm twister.
Percentage wins in Democratic primaries are not at all analagous to wins in a general election. All superdelegates know that.
There is no clearcut advantage for Hillary and at this point a real danger if she is seen as an illegitimate candidate by a significant part of the parties’ base.
Hey, check out this SUSA electoral college math.
It shows both Hillary and Obama winning but by different paths. It shows both of them losing Missouri (but remember SUSA was wrong on Missouri in the primary) but both of them winning Ohio. Hillary wins Florida but not Michigan and Obama is the opposite (personally I think Florida is going to be tough for a Democrat for the reasons I said above – so if I were a superdelegate I wouldn’t count on it). Obama but not Hillary wins Iowa .
Hillary wins 276 -282; Obama wins 280-258 with more states. Those extra states help down ticket. Obama is better for party building and wins more electoral votes. But Hillary can win.
I got it.
She flies to DC, she walks to her desk in the Senate, asks to be recognized, announces that she is introducing a new bill, which happens to be a Statehood Bill for Puerto Rico.
63 delegates? June whatever? No problem.
Obama then becomes the first to co-sponsor the bill.
Strangely almost all the newsreports emphasize that she still has a chance. They even forgot to report that she actually lost Texas once the caucus was counted. I think media members like the idea of weeks more of battling and easy reporting.
The fact seems to be lost that she is showing there is nothing she will not do to become president (a try Bush family trait), including demonstrating conclusively that the Democratic party is too fucked up to run the country or inspire a new generation of voters. Of course I don’t expect that sort of opinion from reporters.
But the columnist and analysts could point out the only way she wins is will be if Clinton mafia members and their tactics drive away cynics and many new voters from caring/voting at all and she consolidates her core who will have no problem putting her manifest destiny ahead of the actual votes and rules.
And Obama cannot possibly be VP. It is a total sell out and he cannot do what the nation needs him to do from that position.
Hilary and all her “experience” might sell as a VP. Johnson and Kennedy didn’t exactly get along, but the ticket won the election. But, only half seriously, I can’t rule out murder as one of the things she’d do to become prez. 😉
intends to do what the nation needs?
Democracy works best when there is participation and participation by the best and brightest. Participation as voters and participation in government.
Obama has proven that he is able to draw in a great many who otherwise haven’t participated in the democratic process while also rallying and inspiring them core American principles.
That power of many can achieve more and better results than wedge politics that drives out too many voters and leave government to hacks, cronies and crooks. We’ve had that for nearly 20 years, if not more.
The country also needs to send a message to the world that we are not ignorant nuts and otherwise make up for electing W twice to office and allowing him to lead us to an unnecessary war. I don’t think we can overestimate the positive statement we’d send to the world if we elected as President an articulate, charasmatic, black man with a Muslim name.
None of that happens with him as VP so long as another Clinton/Bush is in the White House
but I not talking about wedge issues, I’m talking about accountability and Obama has no plans to hold anyone accountable and a lot of his new participants are really Republican voters. In truth the Democratic primaries have been breaking the records in every single state whether Obama was loved there or Hillary was loved there and the fact that America is totally fed up with the Republican party and is practically dying for a different leader can’t be ignored either when noticing how flush the Democratic polls are. We have the most detested president in history in office right now.