May 8, 2008

Hillary Clinton's best argument to the superdelegates.

Look at these Electoral College maps.

50 comments:

Sloanasaurus said...

It's obvious. If Obama was white, the superdelegates would all be trending Clinton at this point.

Obama's supporters are a cult of personality. Why else would they hold up his picture so much at rallies.

Fascism has returned to America.

Hoosier Daddy said...

Hillary's argument is pretty much a loser. I'm betting even money that should the supers go to HRC on the basis of electability in spite of Obama having won the majority of delegates she can pretty much write off the black vote not to mention the 'youth' vote which would result in McCain trouncing her in November.

The irony of it is in essence, Hillary 'stealing' the nomination much like Bush 'stole' the election in 2000. So much for democracy.

Giving it to her at this point would be disastorous for the Democratic Party. Right now the GOP is probably at its lowest point since the Reagan days yet it seems as if the Dems are hell bent on one upping the GOP by doing this.

By all means, don't let us stand in your way.

Zeb Quinn said...

She's got that argument plus a couple more:

-- Obama lost New York, California, Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Texas, and all the battleground states, mainly because he does not get white blue collar votes. Obama won meanwhile mainly in states that are going to go red in November.

-- Obama wins the nomination only by denying the franchise to the voters of Michigan and Florida.

Those are all arguments for her to make, for whatever they may be worth. Her problem is there are other very powerful arguments for Obama.

Roger J. said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Verso said...

Why on earth would anyone regard these Rove maps as anything except disinformation and propaganda designed to manipulate Democratic decision makers?

I mean, really. Rove is a political strategist and operative. Manipulating the opposition party is his bread and butter. I can't believe anyone would put any stock at all in his numbers except as tools of manipulation.

Roger J. said...

I think the Democratic Party is making the same mistake it did in 1968: interpreting enthusiasm for cult-like figures (Clean Gene and RFK) for national support. I have one very large concern for the general election: Whatever progress in American race relations has been made in the past 40 years is going to take a big hit irrespective of the nominees. I sincerely hope I am wrong.

Words1inger said...

Since February 19th (when BO) started getting scrutinized properly), HC has won 60% of all votes.

It all makes me think of his initials. Obama's the Big O. African Americans and college kids enjoy the quickie. The rest of us prefer a more long-term relationship.

George said...

Predictions:

1) A photo of Sen. Obama smoking a cigarette, possibly a Gitanes, surfaces;
2) A video of Sen. Obama at the Million Man March appears, showing him cheering Farrakhan, wearing a beret tipped at a jaunty angle, and smoking a Gitanes;
3) Bill Clinton expresses bemusement at something, possibly a new McDonalds menu item, leading to allegations that he is "out of control" "raging" or "a racist."
4) Sen. Obama's daughters begin wearing black tablecloths over their heads, apparel his campaign denies was donated by the House of Purdah, a Rawalpindi couturier.
5) A second Mrs. Obama is discovered in Pakistan. People magazine pays $5 million for photographs of her veiled, holding her twin babies. Critics of his non-traditional family are denounced as 'narrow minded right-wing fundamentalists.' His campaign denies he is pandering to Utah voters.
5) More about Sen. Obama's pre-1995 relationship with Timothy McVei, er, Prof. Ayers is uncovered, when Home Depot surveillance footage shows them shopping for nails, wire, and timers.
6) To prove his conversion to Christianity, ala a reverse Muhammad Ali, Sen. Obama changes his middle name to "Peter" (after St. Peter) and encourages people to call him "Rocky." White voters are reassured when he is photographed sleeping during a sermon at a Presbyterian Church.
7) An altercation between blacks and whites, ala Jena, Louisiana, or the Duke lacrosse case, somehow creates ugly tensions, injuring the McCain campaign because of his history of violent acts against people of color.

Balfegor said...

Obama's supporters are a cult of personality. Why else would they hold up his picture so much at rallies.

Oh geez. Do they really? That's creepy. I've been saying it since Obama's campaign first took off, but I'll say it again: CREEEEPY! I hope his acolytes don't make us address him as the "Dear Leader."

Sloanasaurus said...

Obama wins the nomination only by denying the franchise to the voters of Michigan and Florida.

Moreover, Obama only wins because he did a better job of Caucus planning - i.e. his activist supporters were more likely to show up at caucuses than Clinton's working class supporters. It is unlikely that Obama would win the popular vote in most of the caucus states over Clinton.

If a Florida primary were held today, Clinton would beat Obama by a million votes.

In addition, while the GOP brand is in the dumps this year, centrist-liberal McCain is seen by many democrats as an acceptable alternative to radical Obama.

Hoosier Daddy said...

Verso, you have a point about Rove being a strategist and operative but that certainly doesn't disprove his analysis.

He does have a point that HRC stands a better chance although I think it wrongly assumes BHO's followers will turn out for her.

Yachira said...

Ted Kennedy went to the convention in 1980 with a lot smaller share of the vote.

Why all the pressure on Hillary to bail out? It is because she's a woman? Obama a Messiah? Or both?

Simon said...

Hoosier Daddy, at this point it seems to be a mistake to assume that either candidate's partisans will turn out for the other.

Balfegor said...
"I've been saying it since Obama's campaign first took off, but I'll say it again: CREEEEPY! I hope his acolytes don't make us address him as the 'Dear Leader.'"

They habitually refer to him as "Barack" - that isn't creepy enough by itself? Everything about the campaign's imagery and presentation reeks of a cult of personality (which does not mean that I'm calling Obama a fascist, I want to emphasize; one sees that charge hurled around too lightly too often), and his divisive stump rhetoric recalls Orwell - substitute "Goldstein" for "George Bush" and "Eastasia" for "Big Oil" and it all seems familiar.

Hoosier Daddy said...

Hoosier Daddy, at this point it seems to be a mistake to assume that either candidate's partisans will turn out for the other.

I agree Simon. McCain is going to have difficulty with the core conservative base and that's been an issue for him from day one.

On the other hand, I think if Hillary somehow pulls the nomination out from under him through some back door deal, I honestly think you'll see the proverbial blood in the streets over it. Hillary's supporters I see as your standatd loyal Democrats that for the most part will turn out for BHO (ok not garage mahal). On the other hand, BHO doesn't have supporters, he has followers who I think will go apocalyptic if she somehow convinces the supers to swing her way.

rcocean said...

Reason HRC will stay in: Racism
Reason people want her to quit: Sexism.

Reason Democrat will lose in November: They're racists and sexists. And because of evil Karl Rove spreading "propaganda" otherwise known as the truth.

Balfegor said...

Re: Simon

They habitually refer to him as "Barack" - that isn't creepy enough by itself?

I don't find it particularly creepy, just kind of undignified. Like calling Sen. Clinton "Hillary," or Dr. Rice "Condoleeza," or Gov. Romney "Mitt." If you haven't been introduced, don't address him/her familiarly. It's a little grating.

Zombies chanting "Obama! Obama!" -- Now THAT is creepy.

Maguro said...

If that is Hillary's best argument, she might as well pack it in. These polls are a meaningless exercise in comparing apples to oranges since the Republicans have picked a nominee and Democrats are still campaigning. Once Obama officially gets the nomination you'll see the most of the Hillary supporters fall in line, giving him a 10-15% lead over McCain in the national polls.

Freder Frederson said...

They habitually refer to him as "Barack" - that isn't creepy enough by itself?

This from a man who uses a picture of Scalia as his avatar and refers to him as "our hero". Priceless.

My God, if anyone knows about cults of personalities it is the Republicans. Don't you guys remember the savior of Western Civilization, Ronald Reagan. And how about George W. himself. That he has a 29% approval rating proves that a third of the country is in his thrall.

Balfegor said...

Don't you guys remember the savior of Western Civilization, Ronald Reagan.

Yes, the cult of the God Reagan is pretty creepy too. But at least he's dead. Makes an imperial cult a little more respectable that way.

Balfegor said...

Blast -- forgot the link.

garage mahal said...

Democrats don't look at electoral maps or exit polls consistently showing a large percentage of her supporters saying they won't for him. This is a feel good campaign! All those Appalachian whites she attracted will fall right in line, you just wait and see. Thank goodness we have Jimmy Carter meeting with Hamas and overseeing their elections and reporting back to us that FL & MI didn't happen, and that Guam and Democrats Abroad did! Forget Hillary's fuzzy math that popular vote is a valid metric in determining the true will of the people, and that winning in Nov is important. We should listen to Obama that on May 20th, he will declare himself the nominee based on winning the "majority" of delegates [excluding those rogue voters in FL and MI].

FL and MI....are you with us!?

Blue Moon said...

Maguro: Amen. Plus, ask former President Dukakis how much a 17 point lead in the polls means.

IMHO, we will know where this is headed after the first Obama / McCain debate. The debate will either look like Quayle vs. Bentsen in 88, or Kennedy vs. Nixon in 1960. I think the odds are a little more in favor of the later than the former.

I just don't buy the argument that since 65% of democratic party white voters in PA voted for Hillary over Obama that that means the these same democrats are all going to vote for McCain. Will some of them? Sure, probably 20% or so. Will that be enough for the GOP to win PA? We'll see...

Wurly said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Hoosier Daddy said...

Don't you guys remember the savior of Western Civilization, Ronald Reagan.

Indeed and quite fondly. Considering his historical landslide election and re-election, I daresay he was quite deserving of hero worship. Then again, no one was walking around chanting his name with pictures of him held high. While you may snark, the former Eastern bloc certainly holds Reagan in higher regard than the Western liberal left who never seemed to think the Soviet Union was really all that bad.

Freder Frederson said...

My God, you guys want it both ways don't you.

Us elitist liberal Democrats are horrible racists because we take black votes for granted and can't connect with the embittered, religious, gun-loving, hardworking, working class people (which of course Republicans care sooo much about). They are the salt of the earth and wonderful people who are not the least bit racist--to imply such a thing is just horribly racist and elitist.

But no way are they going to vote for Obama. They are going to defect to McCain in droves. And its not because Obama is black. No, of course not, its because he is much too liberal. Just look at his policies--he is so far to the left of Hillary, Hillary supporters would never vote for him.

What's that? His policies are practically indistinguishable from Hillary's? His health care proposal is less radical than hers?

But Hillary drinks a shot and a beer! Hillary wants to nuke Iran! Hillary doesn't have a scary-black pastor! Oops!

Pastafarian said...

This is what I pointed out in these comments several weeks ago, just after the Rev. Wright fiasco first broke: After that debacle, Hillary was the stronger of the two Dems versus McCain.

I even directed anyone interested to the site 270towin.com, where you can use their interactive electoral college maps to predict McCain vs. Hillary and McCain vs. Obama.

As Hoosier points out, there's another factor in play here -- if Hillary is handed the nomination by the superdelegates, there might be a backlash, as Obama's supporters will feel betrayed.

But to quote McCain: "What the hell is the base going to do, vote the other way? Screw the base, they have no choice." If Hillary was nominated by the supers, only a very small percentage of die-hard Obamaniacs would stay home, or vote for McCain out of spite. The difference in policy between Clinton and Obama is infinitesimal, after all, and even the cultish Obama-nation cares a little bit about their pet socialist policies.

Pastafarian said...

Fred --

It's not white racism that will drive white voters away from Obama -- it's Obama's 20 years of suckling at the teat of a lunatic black racist who thinks that whites created AIDS to kill blacks.

Once that story broke, Obama had no chance in Ohio or Pennsylvania, two must-win states by any reasonable analysis.

Freder Frederson said...

While you may snark, the former Eastern bloc certainly holds Reagan in higher regard than the Western liberal left who never seemed to think the Soviet Union was really all that bad.

Give me a freaking break. Reagan is given very little credit in the eastern bloc for the events of the late eighties. They rightfully see it as an organic movement that had much more to do with liberalization and internal decay in the Soviet Union than external forces or U.S. policy during the Reagan years.(like the myth that increased U.S. defense spending caused the Kremlin to keep up with the U.S., crippling their economy).

The U.S. was completely taken by surprise by the events of 1989.

Pastafarian said...

Fred --

So the Eastern Bloc gives Reagan very little credit for the downfall of the Soviet Union?

Wow, I'm convinced, then. I mean, they certainly would give credit where it's due, wouldn't "the eastern bloc"?

What's life like on your world? Is the sky blue? One moon, or two?

It's times like this that make me realize that there's little hope of ever having a rational discussion with a member of the community-based reality. When you even have to debate long-accepted and painfully obvious points like this, it just turns discourse into trudging trench warfare.

Freder Frederson said...

Wow, I'm convinced, then. I mean, they certainly would give credit where it's due, wouldn't "the eastern bloc"?

Granted, my personal evidence is anecdotal. But I lived in Germany (Western) from '95--'97 and travelled to the former East Germany, Chzech Republic, and Hungary. Of all the people I met and talked to from those countries not one of them mentioned Ronald Reagan. They talked about their revolution and how they had gained their own freedom from Moscow by standing up and demanding their independence and freedom. Maybe they were being self-centered and narcissitic, but they certainly didn't think the U.S. had much to do with what happened in '89.

The history of 1989 also simply contradicts the contention that Reagan's policies had anything to do with the sudden collapse of the Soviet Bloc. The hemorraging started in Hungary during the summer when Hungary opened its borders and East Germans started streaming across.

Original Mike said...

Pastafarian asked Fred: What's life like on your world? Is the sky blue? One moon, or two?

Well, one thing we know about Fred's World. Conservation of energy is not the law, merely a suggestion.

Simon said...

Balfegor said...
"I don't find it particularly creepy, just kind of undignified. Like calling Sen. Clinton 'Hillary,' or Dr. Rice 'Condoleeza,' or Gov. Romney 'Mitt.' If you haven't been introduced, don't address him/her familiarly. It's a little grating."

"Hillary" is different. Hillary is "Hillary" because there is another prominent politician in the same pond with the same last name, and a means of concisely differentiating is needed. You could use "Senator Clinton" or "Hillary Clinton," but it's much more efficient to just use the first name. I don't hear people referring to Rice or Romney by their first name. I still say it's creepy, a fortiori when taken in the broader context of his cult of personality.

Roger J. said...

The History of 1989 suggests to me that the Soviet decision NOT to invoke the Brezhnev doctrine and intervene as it had done in CZ in 1968 made the events of 1989 possible--so the question, perhaps is: why did NOT the Soviets intervene and what were the underlying factors there?

Freder is most certainly correct that not many people in our military, our state department, nor our CIA saw it coming. Recall also State and CIA opposed the Theater Nuclear Forces initiative in the early 1980s. My take is that Reagan was correct and State and CIA dropped the ball as usual. YMMV.

rossi said...

First of all, on a blog full of so many diverse yet intelligent commenters, are we still going to push the tenuous primary wins/november wins argument, Zeb Quinn?

This argument does not hold water, and every pol has abandoned it save those clinging to some odd strategy to save HRC

And cherry-picking statistics from 1964, Wurly (these states have always chosen a winner), sound exactly like Monday Night Football's inane statistics that pop up on your TV when the insipid commentary runs drier than the trouncing on the field. Why are you choosing 1964?

And does everyone here really believe that past predicts future, or only when it suits your argument?

I'm all for the next five months of debate between the two candidates (sorry, it's Obama v. McCain), and even throwing in the silliness over someone's association (spare me the "sucking at the teat" nastiness, pastafarian) with their pastor or otherwise, as we all know when someone starts opening up the Keating Five files it will get just as ugly (and have more relevance to ethics in the political arena rather than the pew).

I'm okay with people not wanting an Obama presidency, as for some it does not fit with their ideology or beliefs where the country needs to go. Fair game.

Perhaps it's time to stop the insult of your own intelligence or that of others who have or will make an educated decision when they vote.

Continuing the "acolytes", "messiah", "followers" hyperventilating and using some pop-art poster of Obama as evidence of "fascism" that impugns anyone who dare support him, does nothing for people other than prove their laziness, ignorance, over-exposure to AM radio, or (sadly but predictably) all three.

It does nothing to forward any argument (some valid) of why someone should not support Barack (eew, scary I used his first name, creeeepy) HUSSEIN Obama.

Let's face it: It just may be that ONE OR TWO of the 15 million people who voted for Obama, myself one example--there must be one other out there, compared side-by-side the policies that are most important to them and, skipping past the posters of the "messiah", the pantsuit photos of the "second coming of womanhood", or the festooned photos of the tired war vet, and just voted.

Freder Frederson said...

I don't hear people referring to Rice or Romney by their first name. I still say it's creepy, a fortiori when taken in the broader context of his cult of personality.

Oh no, I have never heard anyone call them 'Condi' or 'Mitt' (or 'Rudy' or 'Ahhnold'). And fans of Thompson never called themselves 'Fredheads'. I'll cocede 'W' and 'Jeb' because of their father.

Freder Frederson said...

Recall also State and CIA opposed the Theater Nuclear Forces initiative in the early 1980s.

The only thing that Theater Nuclear Forces did was piss off the citizenry of our NATO allies. It the grand scheme of things it was a meaningless gesture.

Outis said...

Yachira wrote: Why all the pressure on Hillary to bail out? It is because she's a woman? Obama a Messiah? Or both?

Neither. It's because the Democrats remember that the Kennedy fiasco hurt an already shaky re-election campaign, and that more than anything the Democrats want to win the Presidency this year, as it appears they will hold both houses of Congress by comfortable margins. If both the candidates were as WASPy as John Edwards there would be pressure on the losing candidate to get out now.

And the reason everyone calls him "Barack" is because "Obama" is almost as common as "Smith".

Roger J. said...

You are entitled to your opinion, Freder; however, there were some very real tactical reasons for deploying them in light of the SS21 threat; they signaled US resolve following the disastrous Carter administration's foreign policy, and they undercut Senator McClelland's initiative to withdrawal 300,00 troops from Europe. The audience for the deployment was not the cowed citizens of Western Europe; it was the Soviet Union, and quite possibly assisted in the freeing of the Warsaw Pact nations. I am sure you see it differently.

Hoosier Daddy said...

Reagan is given very little credit in the eastern bloc for the events of the late eighties.

Oh dear. Yes Freder I suppose you're right. I mean what the hell could I have been thinking.

I guess those folks are just idiots.

Freder is most certainly correct that not many people in our military, our state department, nor our CIA saw it coming.

I'm not sure what this has to do with anything. I'm sure when Reagan decided to confront the Soviets head on he didn't proclaim: "The Soviet Union will be defeated on August 12, 1989 at 2:43 EST.

Roger J. said...

Hoosier--the reason I mentioned that little tidbit was there some post USSR collapse books published by former State and CIA officials arguing that US policies had little effect on the fall of the USSR. Since it was precisely those agencies that objected to Reagan's approach and were entranced by detente, Reagan proved them wrong. The books can be seen as ex post facto rationalizations for their failures.

Freder Frederson said...

The audience for the deployment was not the cowed citizens of Western Europe; it was the Soviet Union, and quite possibly assisted in the freeing of the Warsaw Pact nations. I am sure you see it differently.

It is sheer arrogance, and simply wrong, to call the citizens of Western Europe "cowed". As we found out when the Soviet Bloc collapsed like the cheap house of cards it was, the threat posed by the Soviet Union had been overstated for years. Perhaps the Europeans were simply more realistic about the threat posed than we were.

Freder Frederson said...

Hey Hoosier, your link doesn't work.

Freder Frederson said...

I'm sure when Reagan decided to confront the Soviets head on he didn't proclaim.

Even this is a myth. While Reagan was indeed hard-line in his first term, by his second term his tune had changed considerably and in Iceland he nearly gave away our entire nuclear arsenal.

Kirk Parker said...

Freder,

Actually, you mean "The bien pensants in the US were completely taken by surprise by the events of 1989."

Meanwhile, Possony, Pournelle, and Kane published The Strategy of Technology in 1968, but the concepts and reasoning in that volume started much earlier.

As far as SDI or European theater nukes, having nothing to do with it, I find
these guys a bit more credible than I find you, especially the former since it relies on actual minutes from Politburo meetings.

blake said...

Actually, the turns in this thread prove that some people will never be done fighting the 2000 election.

We're not even done squabbling over the fall of Communism.

Roger J. said...

Freder: I shouldn't have called all the citizens cowed--Ms. Thatcher was the PM of the UK. But there was clearly a segment of the population that was cowed and saw the deployment of the TNF as inviting their destruction by the Soviet Union. The strategic reason is this: prior to the deployment of TNF, and under the concept of MAD, Europe could take some comfort that it would be the US that would bear the brunt of a nuclear exchange. TNF made the whole issue of the Soviet Arsenal, and particularly the deployment of the SS-21 much more salient to them.

At any rate, I have gotten way off topic--my apologies to the group. You will have to find someone else to convince, Freder; it won't be me. Cheers.

Original Mike said...

As we found out when the Soviet Bloc collapsed like the cheap house of cards it was, the threat posed by the Soviet Union had been overstated for years. Perhaps the Europeans were simply more realistic about the threat posed than we were.

Yeah, 'cause it's not like the Soviet Union would invade a neighbor, or anything.

Bruce Hayden said...

It should be quite an interesting election, if Obama is the nominee. His problem is that all those Reagan Democrats are likely to vote for McCain. Not because they are racist, but rather, because so many of them are "patriotic" in the way that McCain is. For them, the son and grandson of 4 star admirals, twice a war hero himself, retiring as a Naval Captain, and with 2 of his sons in uniform, one fresh back from a tour of Anbar, plays much better than the Peace Corp. Many of them served or had family members who served, and find this sort of service to the country admirable. Oh, and they probably don't like to be called "bitter" over their guns and religion.

On the other hand, McCain is likely to have some of the Republican base sitting this out, and others voting for Obama because he is new, etc.

Hillary! on the other hand, while not having McCain's credentials there, seems to have some attraction for those Reagan Democrats. On the other hand, she is still despised by much of the Republican party, and may get some of those who might sit at home with an Obama nomination to come out to vote against her.

I would still though put Hillary!'s chances of winning the general election above Obama's.

Bruce Hayden said...

Sorry, I meant to say that a number of the Reagan Democrats are likely to vote for McCain over Obama, and not that all of them would. Obama will get some, but enough to put him over the top? Right now, I doubt it.

Ben (The Tiger) said...

Sure, none of those Eastern Europeans have any use for Reagan.

That statue in Prague, and that other one in Warsaw -- these mean nothing.

Figments of the imagination, I say.

[Actually, I'd probably piss off some Czechs with this post -- they insist on being "Central Europeans" -- with the reasonable enough argument that Prague is west of Vienna...]

***

Which just goes to show how funny history's judgments can be, compared with received opinion of the time...

(What does this have to do with Hillary's best argument to the supers? Dunno.)