Slightly Presumptuous
Let it not be said that Hillary Clinton doesn’t make as much hay as possible out of every bump she gets. After winning in Ohio and kind-of winning in Texas, her campaign is painting itself as the eventual winner–to the point of pushing for the possibility of a Clinton/Obama ticket. Rather presumptuous, considering that her “victory” netted her very few delegates, and at this point she still trails Obama by 100 delegates, even counting the Supers. And after Obama’s landslide win in Wyoming, it’s just a wee bit too soon to be counting him out quite yet.
After Mississippi (which Obama is probably going to win by several touchdowns), the delegate count will be back to the same levels they were before Ohio, more or less erasing whatever advantage Hillary got last week save for the perception of her campaign not dying quite yet.
Pennsylvania will probably give Hillary a boost, but again, not enough to make a critical difference. She’d have to win by 10% in order to get a net gain of 25 delegates, and Obama would still be ahead by about 110 pledged delegates. Next up are North Carolina and Indiana. Obama should win the former and Clinton the latter–but North Carolina has a lot more delegates and Obama is known for winning by bigger margins. (There is a chance that Obama will do at least fairly well in Indiana, neutralizing any big win by Hillary.) Obama will probably make up some or even a lot of what he will have lost in Pennsylvania on this day. After that we get West Virginia and Oregon. Hillary is set to take West Virginia, but Obama is very strong in Oregon–and again, Obama’s state has more delegates. Obama is likely to make up even more of the Pennsylvania delegate damage, maybe even erasing it by this time.
After that, Clinton may clean up the remainders–Kentucky, Puerto Rico, Montana, and South Dakota, though Obama could very possibly win one or more of those, nothing is sure. But assume that Clinton does win; she probably won’t do it by huge margins, and those four states are worth a total of 137 delegates–which is probably about how many delegates Obama will be in the lead by then. Hillary would have to win 100% to 0% to get ahead in pledged delegates, and of course nothing like that will happen. If she’s lucky, she might pick up dozen or two delegates, but no more, and probably less.
Even if there are re-do primaries/caucuses in Florida and Michigan, Hillary will gain quite a bit (maybe explaining why Obama is lukewarm to the idea of do-overs), but she still won’t be able to jump ahead. She and Obama are tied in Michigan, so she’ll have to settle for what Florida will give her. Florida has 210 delegates, and right now Clinton enjoys a 55%-39% lead. Say she wins by 59% to 41%; it will get her a net gain of almost 40 delegates, sure enough a big win–but still not nearly enough to overcome Obama’s lead. (Also consider the mitigating factor that Obama would probably go balls-to-the-wall in Florida, and for good reason; he could cut into that Clinton lead significantly, as he has done before elsewhere.) Worst case, Obama will still be ahead by maybe 80 or 90 pledged delegates, and assuming the Supers that commit between now and then don’t tilt more to one candidate or the other, he’ll still have a lead overall. Hillary would have even worse luck if the do-overs are caucuses and not primaries.
It will, inevitably, come down to the superdelegates. If Florida’s votes are counted, Hillary could be ahead in the popular vote. So it would be another split: will superdelegates give their votes to the winning of the popular vote or the winner of the delegate count?
Again, it would have to come down to getting the numerical advantage. I would have to say that this could be close and will almost certainly come down to the convention–but even under rosy circumstances for Clinton, she’s the less likely to win this in the end. Virtually everything would have to go her way in order to win this, and then she’d have to sway Obama, after all that, to take the pitcher-of-warm-spit side of the ticket. Conceivable, but not likely.
But she can make it a hell of a lot harder for Obama to win in November–and considering the scorched-earth tactics she’s already demonstrating, it’s likely that she will do just that.
Even the blind could see Sen. Clinton’s and advisors are only committed to destroy Sen. Barack Obama. But as the saying goes “Whosoever diggeth a pit shall fall in it”.It’s clear now that a huge majority of voters in the US is fed up with such old fash politicians as the Clinton, Mac Cain, Bush who turn the law and democratic rules to their own benefit..People of all conditions were longing for a CHANGE to occur and the longing- for CHANGE is no longer out of reach with them.Clinton-Mac Cain-Bush are alike. They are fueling a kind of conspiracy deeply routed in the past. They are still sticked to the idea that tough rethoric still works though a huge majority of Voters have shown they weren’t brainwashed . Now we must stay confident and face the CHANGE to come. History has planned the uprising of Sen. Barack Obama. Nobody can stop the course of History.
Excellent piece by Andrew Sullivan on the Clintons:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/andrew_sullivan/article3510778.ece
I fancied this:
“The further away you are from them, the easier it is to think they’re fine. Up close they are an intolerable, endless, soul-sapping soap opera.”
What’s bumming me out is that in her desire/drive to win, she’s slagging on Obama too much- and kind of semi-praising McCain at the same time. View her recent “Obama doesn’t have the foreign policy experience that I have, and that McCain has” talk.
I think the Clinton team thought she was a lock, inevitable, and now they’re willing to do anything to see that happen- even to wipe out a perfectly good fellow Democrat.
Which is reason enough to support Obama. 😉
Paul: I believe the way they see things, is the way the Republicans see things. Guys like Rush Limbaugh and Karl Rove, they see their job as to make who ever is the Democrat appear unacceptable to the American electorate. They’ve already succeeded in that endeavor with the Clintons, witness Hillary’s high negatives. Which is why they want her at the top of the ticket come November.
The Clinton’s have observed all this, learned from it, and are attempting to apply it to Obama. The goal, as I see it, isn’t to ‘throw the kitchen sink’ at him, but just simply make him look unacceptable to the electorate: to some that means he’s a flipflopper on NAFTA, to others, they make him look like a Muslim, to others – the biggots, they make him look ‘darker and of broader nose’ or more african african-american.
Now to you and I, and I should hope most Americans (but then it worked really well for Bush), this should make Clinton look unacceptable. One thing I think the Obama campaign should suggest is, if a candidate campaigns like a street thug, you shouldn’t be surprise when his/her administration performs like a street thug – I’m talking torture and the trashing of the constitution by one George Bush who truly campaigned like a thug.
The more Hillary tries to make Obama look unacceptable, the more she herself should look unacceptable. And really she’s become unsightly to me.
Along the way, you get a sense as just how entitled to the Presidency she really things she is. You don’t see anything like this narcissism in a functioning democracy. Can you imagine if she was around in 1787? This country got George Washington, Mexico got Santa Ana. She’s Santa Ana.
Tim: “… But remembering the day-to-day psychodramas of those years still floods my frontal cortex with waves of loathing and anxiety. The further away you are from them, the easier it is to think they’re fine. …” — Andrew Sullivan shows nice knowledge about psychiatry-like psychology (kinda medical science). I once commented on this blog like “The nearer the mental conflict comes up, the further she wants to go away from that.” Hmm, oh here is good analysis of yours: “The more Hillary tries to make Obama look unacceptable, the more she herself should look unacceptable. And really she’s become unsightly to me.” — I absolutely agree on this critical point. Anyways, nice quote and good comments, thank you.
I think it would be interesting to hear Satchi describe what it is like to be living w/ a famous blogger.