March 4, 2008

What happens after tonight?

Noam Scheiber reviews the possible scenarios after today's primaries.
1.) Hillary wins both Ohio and Texas. I don't see how this doesn't send us into a six-week-long battle for Pennsylvania.
Don't let Noam's double negative fool you: We'll have a long battle for Pennsylvania.
2.) Hillary wins Ohio; Obama wins Texas. Hillary's inclination will be to fight on (witness her recent remarks about "just getting warmed up"). And the press will let her do it for a couple of days. But i just don't see how she sustains it....
i sure do.
3.) Obama wins both Ohio and Texas. I see almost no chance of this happening after NAFTA-gate.
Oh, yes: NAFTA-gate. I need to post on that. It's a terrible screw-up by Obama.

Anyway, in this scenario, Noam expects Hillary to concede. What if it's close? What about the poor people of Pennsylvania? Shouldn't they have their say? I won't believe she's out until she says it.

33 comments:

Fen said...

It's a terrible screw-up by Obama

Screw-up? Obama's camp got caught deliberately lying to the media, had to revise and extend after Canada presented minutes of the meeting that "never happened".

How is this Change[tm] ?

AllenS said...

As long as the Rezko trial is ongoing, Hillary would be a fool to concede. Even if she doesn't have enough delegates, any revelation on OBH being just another dirty politician from Chicago, the Rezko trial, could get the superdelegates to flock to Clinton. Remember, she is the smartest woman in the world, and a New York Yankee fan.

George said...

She should stay in no matter what.

Someone may discover that her opponent's autobiography is fiction...

"Dreams [From My Father] reads like an historical novel by Leon Uris or Alex Haley. It is a long string of recounted conversations, written as if he recalled them verbatim, including details of what people wore, how they sat and what weather was while he was growing up in Hawaii and Indonesia, and in his early career in Chicago. Dates to place them in context are not provided."

You never know....his book tour might be cancelled.

Middle Class Guy said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Middle Class Guy said...

Fen said...
It's a terrible screw-up by Obama

Screw-up? Obama's camp got caught deliberately lying to the media, had to revise and extend after Canada presented minutes of the meeting that "never happened".


Hillary's campaign has been one big deliberate lie to the media and the people. She even has the liar in chief on the campaign trail.

She has the best defense though. "Oh, please, ha ha, let's just move on and discuss my universal honesty initiative” or some such drivel.

Fen said...

Conyers hopes to move slavery reparations bill during an Obama administration

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/patient-conyers-hopes-to-move-slavery-bill-during-an-obama-administration-2007-03-12.html

Oh joy.

Middle Class Guy said...

AllenS said...
As long as the Rezko trial is ongoing, Hillary would be a fool to concede.



Well, then it would be fair to bring up Hillary's past legal clients wouldn't it. Of course that would be dirty pool wouldn't it? We do not want to bring up Jim McDougal and company again do we? So Hillary is just another dirty corrupt politician from Arkansas, right?

Fen said...

Hillary's campaign has been one big deliberate lie to the media and the people

Oh of course. But Hillary is not Obama's standard. Remember, Obama is running as a different kind of candidate - no more partisan spite, no more corruption, no more business as usual, etc.

Middle Class Guy said...

George said...
She should stay in no matter what.

Someone may discover that her opponent's autobiography is fiction...


And what does Hillary's autobiography read like- fantasy fiction or the biggest fairy tale anyone has ever seen?

Roger said...

Looks like the chicago media ripped Bro O a new AO. Why should Hillary get out now when Obama might be losing the teflon? Its going all the way to the convention.

Roger said...

Onlyl question at this point is who is the bigger liar? Obama or Hillary?

Fen said...

Hey MCG, I don't understand your angle here.

While I agree that Obama's dirt is a mere dustbunny compared to Hillary's pile of bull, Obama's campaign is centered around being held to a much higher standard. Thats been his message and appeal throughout the primaries.

hawkeyedjb said...

A pox on both of them... here we have two serious candidates for the presidency, each trying to outdo the other in promising to screw our neighbors. And they call W an arrogant unilaterist!

A dipomat once said that America is useless as an enemy and treacherous as a friend. These two are working hard to prove it so.

Fen said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
AllenS said...

MCG--

Of course you are correct, but Hillary would just say that it's old news. My point being, that she only needs to convince the superdelegates that he's dirty.

Simon said...

I'm recused from discussing Obama here, but I'll very briefly make two very narrowly-drawn points. First, I'd predict that Clinton will win Ohio and draw in Texas. Second, while I wouldn't go so far as George ("[s]he should stay in no matter what"), even if she loses both states, she should stay in as long as it's close, because it seems to me that, no matter one's opinion of Obama, there has been a sea change in attitudes towards him among the press. Free ride has changed to scrutiny and even skepticism. This is, by no means, over yet - and that's even if there isn't a do-over in (or capitulation over) Florida, which there may yet be.

Sheepman said...

I agree with all three scenarios. The most iffy is #2, but I think if Obama wins in Texas he'll get a series of big endorsements, super delegates will start flocking to him and the Democratic leadership will pressure HRC to drop out.

Fen said...

I think your recusal is ill-advised. I'l like to hear your input on Obama.

As for your comments re McCain, I'm already there, even though I left the party because of his immigration scam.

Sloanasaurus said...

Hillary will win Ohio and will stay in. She will get momentum from Ohio. She has a good argument to make to the super delegates that Obama is only winning in states that they will lose in the general election. Democrats are not going to win South Carolina or Texas or Georgia. IN contrast, Deomcrats need to win Ohio and Hillary is winning it.

George said...

Simon--

She should stay in no matter what because doing so will only sow enmity in the Democratic Party, thus easing a GOP win.

Plus, she truly has been vetted. Obama has not. Maybe as MC above suggests her autobiography is a hooey, too, but I think we have much more to learn about who Sen. Obama is than we do about Sen. Clinton. She is a fixed entity; he is plastic.

My understanding is superdelegates can switch loyalties any which way until the convention. Anything can happen, so long as she stays close in the regular delegate count.

titusportdebras said...

Hilary will stay.

I agree with Simon that she will win Ohio and draw and Texas. She will win Rhode Island and he will win Vermont.

She should stay. Pennsylvania should be a good state for her and it is really close in terms of total vote count as well as delegate count.

I could see her perhaps even winning Texas.

The shine is wearing off Obama, which I think is a good thing, and Hilary should capitalize on it.

By the way currently I am not horny.

rhhardin said...

I don't see how this doesn't send us into a six-week-long battle for Pennsylvania.

Don't let Noam's double negative fool you: We'll have a long battle for Pennsylvania.


It's not a double negative.

It may be getting confused with sturdy indefensibles like ``I could care less.''

There are some lovely mistakes that can be use tactfully

Each one better than the next

Fills a much-needed gap

mistakes that are not completely without merit.

And also, in ordinary varieties of language, piled-on negatives reenforce rather than cancelling.

And Max Beerbohm (_Zuleika Dobson_) used one exquisitely

No apple-tree, no wall of peaches, had not been robbed, nor any Tyrian rose-garden, for the glory of Miss Dobson's cheeks. Her neck was imitation-marble. Her hands and feet were of very mean proportions. She had no waist to speak of.

to imitate a vulgar double negative's getting of the opposite meaning.

TMink said...

I agree with Tituswhateverhisnextnameistoday.

Hillary will stay in. It is her nature.

I am happy to say that as a disgruntled conservative I have found the ideal candidate! My wife!

She is a woman, she is from the South, and she would do a much better job than any of the current possibilities.

So join me and write in Rebecca Paul (not her real name.)

Trey

titusportdebras said...

I am going with ballet names at the end of my "titus" postings if those of you haven't noticed.

I like the theme.

By the way I just read Bush's christian outreach staff person is a serial plagarizer-that's sad. I wouldn't expect a christian to do that. I am very disasspointed.

As a christian conservative I expect more from my brethen.

titusportdebras said...

I just heard Howard Wolfson bills the Clinton campaign $275,000 a month.

I want that job.

I wonder how much the guy who gives out Clinton pins at gay bars makes?

Dust Bunny Queen said...

"By the way I just read Bush's christian outreach staff person is a serial plagarizer-that's sad. I wouldn't expect a christian to do that. I am very disasspointed."


Why not Titus? We stole the whole first half of the Bible from the Jews.

I agree that Clinton will stay in the race because it is her nature not to give up. Why should she? She has delegates from the larger States and the Media is beginning to wake up and actually ask Obama some real questions. It's just beginning to get dirty. Obama is a product of the Democrat Chicago political machine, one of the down and dirtiest in the world. The Clinton attack machine is relentless and diabolical as to be expected run by two sociopaths.

As a "fellow" Republican I am looking forward to the Democrat in-fighting. Nothing like seeing your opponents turn on themselves. Whoever emerges from this battle is going to be bearing some self inflicted wounds.

/making popcorn for the final smackdown.

Richard Dolan said...

These journalistic "analyses" of Hillary's supposed options seem to be mostly about the particular pundit's agenda rather than hers, let alone any objective analysis of what's in play.

I suspect that a lot of this stuff, be it in the TNR or the NYT or the WaPo, reflects the author's fear that, if the Dems don't end the intra-party fight soon, they will just help to elect McCain. After all, the writers most invested in the story are all Dems; both those writers and their editors seem more strongly committed to a Dem win in November than they are to either candidate at this point.

Hillary and Obama only sign on to half of that agenda: the half that is supposed to incline the other to withdraw graciously BEFORE IT IS TOO LATE. Nothing about tonight's results necessarily means that Hillary (or Obama) has to get out, particularly since the most likely result will be more proof of an evenly divided Dem electorate.

The real audience for all this is the Dem super-delegates; both of the candidates need to fashion a narrative, using the results of the primary, that explains to that audience why he/she deserves the nomination. Part of that will be why he/she is more likely to beat McCain. I don't see how anyone can conclude at this stage that Hillary is bound to lose that debate in front of that audience.

Slim999 said...

I'm smarter than Noam Scheiber, and I didn't even finish high school.

Mark my words:

Scenario #1: Hillary eeks out wins in both Ohio and Texas.

Result: Hillary stays in until the Convention.

Scenario #2 (most likely result): Hillary wins Ohio, but Obama eeks out a win in Texas.

Result: Hillary declares that the tide just turned and that finally, since people are asking the tough questions about Obama, they're deciding they'd rather have her experience in the White House. She goes all the way to the Convention.

Scenario #3: Obama eeks out victories in both Texas and Ohio. Hillary notes how much tainted money he spent in those states and how she was outspent by 3-to-1, so of course Obama was going to barely squeek by her in these two states. But, she'll say, there are 19 states that have not had a chance to have their say, and surely Obama wouldn't want those voters to be disenfranchised.

Would he?

Result: Hillary fights on to the Convention.

At the Convention, the Superdelegates will pull Obama aside and tell him he did a great job but he's not going to win thge nomination in a floor fight, but they'll put him on the ticket as the Vice-Presidential candidate, so he can gain the needed experience to run in 2012.

So, if Noam Scheiber is so smart, how come he's wrong, but I'm right?

Mortimer Brezny said...

The idea that Hillary Clinton is tied with Barack Obama is a joke.

She can stay in if she wants, but all she's doing is giving McCain ammunition.

Mortimer Brezny said...

At the Convention, the Superdelegates will pull Obama aside and tell him he did a great job but he's not going to win thge nomination in a floor fight,

And the Democratic Party no longer exists, as millions of African-Americans register as independents.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

Conyers hopes to move slavery reparations bill during an Obama administration

So, would Barak Obama be exempt from getting reparations since his father is/was an African from Kenya and never was descended from slaves and his mother is a Caucasion from Kansas and presumably not a slave descendent either?

Or. If this stupid idea comes to pass is anyone who is darker than a mocha latte going to get free money? Seriously....how are they going to make reparations and make them realistic.

I demand reparations from the British as it seems that some of my long ago ancestors were indentured servants before the Revolutionary War.

Slim999 said...

"And the Democratic Party no longer exists, as millions of African-Americans register as independents."

Not ever gonna happen.

Not when Obama does the "right thing" by giving a rousing Convention speech telling all his followers this was the way he wanted it.

Which he will do. If he doesn't, he's through politically and he knows it.

Black people don't organize. They are organized for others by others to utilize as they see fit and they vote as a bloc.

The Democrat Party knows this, which is why they can invite blacks into the yard, but not into the house.

Or the Senate. Or the DNC.

I mean, after all ... the Democrats control all three of those institutions, yet there is not a single black person among the top leadership positions in either the Democrat Party, the House or the Senate.

Those are whites only counters.

Fen said...

Not ever gonna happen. Not when Obama does the "right thing" by giving a rousing Convention speech telling all his followers this was the way he wanted it.

I think blacks will see right through that. And they may treat Obama the same way Dems treated Kerry/Edwards for "surrendering" 04 without a fight.