Posted on 04/23/2008 4:47:55 PM PDT by The_Republican
Here’s some advice for the myriad of fawning pro-Obama pundits with visions of Camelots and Great Societies dancing in their heads: Stop dismissing Hillary Clinton. Her Pennsylvania victory is real and significant, she has additional opportunities in upcoming primaries, and she’s still in the race because, well, she’s still in the race.
For weeks, it’s been evident that the number to watch for assessing Clinton’s chances is not the pledged-delegate count. It’s not the national opinion polls, either the spread against Barack Obama or the fall hypotheticals against John McCain. It’s not the number of state contests that each candidate has won. And it’s not the fundraising take.
The number to watch is the popular vote in Democratic primaries and caucuses, including Florida.
The popular vote is the key metric because of the nature of Clinton’s final pitch to the super-delegates, who will select the nominee. If by winning sizable victories in Pennsylvania (just accomplished), Indiana, Kentucky, West Virginia, and Puerto Rico, and keeping Obama’s victory margins in North Carolina, Oregon, and elsewhere modest, Clinton ekes out a popular-vote majority, she hopes to morph into Al Gore. That is, she wants the Democratic officeholders and functionaries who form the ranks of the super-delegates to hear an echo of Gore’s 2000 complaint and to fear that rank-and-file Democrats will perceive a similar injustice.
Yes, Clinton is also arguing that she would be a better general-election candidate against McCain, but that’s a bit speculative. Using national and state-by-state polls, one can construct a case either way. What would help Clinton sell her scenario is to be able to say, “Not only are there good reasons why I am the most competitive candidate for Democrats, but most Democratic voters agree with me.”
Perhaps most importantly, the vote tally Clinton will cite, with some justification, will include her big win in the January 29 Florida primary. Naturally, she’d like to throw in Michigan, too. But the two cases are dissimilar. Although both candidates said they would honor the national party’s sanctions against Florida for moving its contest early, both candidates were listed on the ballot. Neither ran full-bore, well-funded campaigns in the state. In Michigan, however, Clinton was on the ballot but Obama was not. Attributing the non-Clinton votes to Obama is one way to try to add Michigan in, but it ignores the fact that Obama voters were more likely than Clinton voters to stay home on January 15, not thinking that it was worth the bother.
At this writing, it appears that Clinton defeated Obama in Pennsylvania by nearly 220,000 votes. That’s a pretty big chunk cut out of Obama’s half-million-plus cumulative lead going into the Pennsylvania contest. Now attention will turn to North Carolina and Indiana on May 6, where Clinton must win the latter and at least push her percentage into the 40s in the former.
Always, always take the Clintons seriously. You don’t have to like ‘em. But take ‘em seriously.
If Obama runs close in Indiana, she has NO CHANCE of overtaking him in Popular Votes either.
All indications are that NOT only he would run CLOSE in Indiana, he may even eek out a win. RCP shows 2 polls where he was up by +5 and one where he was behind 19 points. I am sorry, that -19 is a bad data point and needs to be thrown out.
The Clintoons should ALWAYS be taken seriously.
Sort of like the Mob
Particular given the Clintons are much like Mugabe in what they will do to get/stay in power.
Hillary puts on her pants just like anybody else, one cloven hoof at a time.
I’ve been saying this for months. Next thing to realize for all of the mesmerized is that the Manchurian Candidate has split the conservative base asunder and there is NO way he’s going to be able to put it back together again short of assasinating the entire leadership cadre of the RAT party on national television.
Bottom line: get ready for the third reign of the krintons.
We need a self-anointed leader, one who has never been sullied by winning any elective office, to tell us conservatives to rally ‘round Clinton just to confuse her. Yeah, that’s the ticket.
> Sort of like the Mob
Yep. I’ve been saying that an Obama presidency would be like a Carter redux, while a Hillary presidency would be like an Al Capone presidency.
Unfortunately, McCain would probably most resemble Nixon (strong on defense, dreadful domestically).
Obama has the potential to make Jimmuh Carter look great
> Obama has the potential to make Jimmuh Carter look great
Like a Marxist slacker, maybe.
But “great?” I think not.
Hirlery would make Hitler or Stalin look like Boy scouts if she could get away with it.
The big risk is that Obama implodes for some as-yet-unknown reason.
Then we get the witch.
ALWAYS drive a wooden stake through the heart of the witch. Otherwise, she comes back in Act IV.
That’s been pretty much my take but I feel a bit more nervous about Obama as president than that. I only hope he is as incompetent as Carter.
Yes, Obama is a died in the wool Marxist, it's hard to understand how people can't see that
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.