Good grief. I’ve got to write something up for the Guardian in a few hours, and, right now, it looks like Pennsylvania’s going to count for nothing. Clinton is probably going to win by a blah margin — say, six or eight points. That’s enough for her to keep going, but not enough for her to have a realistic chance of winning the nomination, or to refill her depleted campaign coffers.
Here’s a theory. It strikes me that, over the last month, increasing numbers of Democrats have decided that Clinton has a better chance than Obama does of beating McCain in the fall. Yet it’s almost certainly too late for Clinton, and no one knows what to do about it. Thus we go on and on and on, and no one can say how it will end.
Mostly I’ve been watching MSNBC. Now Tim Russert and Harold Ford are drawing a line in the sand in Indiana. If Obama wins Indiana, it’s over. Unless it isn’t, of course.
Discover more from Media Nation
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Go crazy – check out Fox for a while. Rove is really interesting analyzing numbers. Also – the CNN pollster/analyzer is really interesting, talking about the two blue collar corridors.MSNBC is just a Parade of Proxies.
Well, every time I go to Fox, there are Bill Kristol and Fred Barnes.
Well, it looks like an actual 10 point win for Hillary. Though that’s down from the polling margins of 6 weeks ago, it’s better than the revised expectations of 6-8.But Hillary needed a 60-40 win in PA and all the remaining primaries, plus a 60-40 split in superdelegates to get to the nomination. That ain’t happening.This delegate counter from CNN is useful for playing with delegate numbers.
It strikes me that, over the last month, increasing numbers of Democrats have decided that Clinton has a better chance than Obama does of beating McCain in the fall.How the heck do you reach that conclusion? While Obama has made little inroads into her base, the same could be said about hers into his. There’s also the fact that Pennsylvania has the second oldest citizenry of all the states, and we already know of the huge divide that is struggling to take control of the party; boomers not willing to let go, and the next generation that is fed up with the same old tactics that always cause the dem’s to lose.Hillary’s problem is that the later group has edged out more victories where it counts. The dynamics haven’t changed much and their bases are rock solid, while independents also seem to be coalescing in their views. You might have been able to make that conclusion with a 15-30% sweep of the state, but I just don’t see it from the exit polls… (and repeating team Clinton talking points helps no one).
It strikes me that, over the last month, increasing numbers of Democrats have decided that Clinton has a better chance than Obama does of beating McCain in the fall.How the heck do you reach that conclusion? ……………….I don’t know, either…but it’s not just Dan saying it. I heard the same thing during NPR’s “All Things Considered/Primary Coverage” last night during the 9-10pm hour.Personally, I believe the trail of logic is this: Obama made some small but highly visible gaffes that gave weight to the “elitism” charge against him. Because his publica persona is one of “rising above” the fray of politics, he was seriously hampered in how he could respond to those charges.Accordingly, the thinking is that Obama would be similarly hamstrung against McCain, whereas Clinton can pull out all the stops and go for blood. Ergo, Clinton is the better choice.To be clear, that’s my analysis…not my opinion. Personally, I could go for either Clinton or Obama – I think either would make a decent President, and certainly I think that either would be a damn sight better than McCain.(for the record, I registered as a Republican and voted for Huckabee; I figured I couldn’t do much good for the left by propping up the Dems, so the least I could do was try and mess things up for the right) :-)My chief concern is that Hillary really brings out the hate in conservatives. Whereas Obama (and, for that matter, McCain) typically gets a shrug and a “oh well”. So she’s more likely to energize the Republican voting turnout, and thus I think she might actually be less electable in that regard.Even so, there’s such a huge backlash against Republicans that I think even Mondale could beat Reagan in this political climate.